# Perfect example for 2nd amendment rights.



## Theowl32 (Apr 5, 2018)

Unlike the rich elitist left wing commies protected by armed guards and behind walls, the middle class who dont have such luxuries, perfect example.

Gentleman breaking into the persons home with a machete with the intention of killing the man and his wife.

Fucking left wingers are losers. Esepcially the rich hypocritical white ones.


----------



## aaronleland (Apr 5, 2018)

I was reading a comment below the video.

_"Good thing he locked the door made of Kleenex."_


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 5, 2018)

Theowl32 said:


> Unlike the rich elitist left wing commies protected by armed guards and behind walls, the middle class who dont have such luxuries, perfect example.
> 
> Gentleman breaking into the persons home with a machete with the intention of killing the man and his wife.
> 
> Fucking left wingers are losers. Esepcially the rich hypocritical white ones.


Must of been a 9mm.  I use the 45 auto, only have to shoot the liberal once.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Apr 5, 2018)

Obviously not a head shot. Yeesh.


----------



## g5000 (Apr 5, 2018)

Theowl32 said:


> Unlike the rich elitist left wing commies protected by armed guards and behind walls, the middle class who dont have such luxuries, perfect example.
> 
> Gentleman breaking into the persons home with a machete with the intention of killing the man and his wife.
> 
> Fucking left wingers are losers. Esepcially the rich hypocritical white ones.


What is your proposal for mitigating the 11,000+ gun homicides in the US each year?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

Theowl32 said:


> Unlike the rich elitist left wing commies protected by armed guards and behind walls, the middle class who dont have such luxuries, perfect example.
> 
> Gentleman breaking into the persons home with a machete with the intention of killing the man and his wife.
> 
> Fucking left wingers are losers. Esepcially the rich hypocritical white ones.


What are you talking about? Next time try a little harder to make your point, you got to caught up in trying to insult the Left to actually clearly communicate what the fuck you were wanting to say.


----------



## depotoo (Apr 5, 2018)

Did you see this news report of another man wielding a machete and broke into 2 apartments?  They had no weapons and felt helpless as to what to do if he had attacked them with it.  Fortunately, he didn’t, but what if he had?  They were defenseless.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Apr 5, 2018)

Leftists would prosecute the guy with the gun, because...guns are bad, mmmkay.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

depotoo said:


> Did you see this news report of another man wielding a machete and broke into 2 apartments?  They had no weapons and felt helpless as to what to do if he had attacked them with it.  Fortunately, he didn’t, but what if he had?  They were defenseless.


Who is saying that law abiding families shouldn’t have the right to own a gun to protect their families in their home? Please show who is saying that or stop dishonestly implying that is the sentiment of the “left”


----------



## Marion Morrison (Apr 5, 2018)

depotoo said:


> Did you see this news report of another man wielding a machete and broke into 2 apartments?  They had no weapons and felt helpless as to what to do if he had attacked them with it.  Fortunately, he didn’t, but what if he had?  They were defenseless.



The brother in law probably scared the guy to death!


----------



## depotoo (Apr 5, 2018)

Well, let’s see.  There was only a hand gun ban in DC for 32 years that did just that....





Slade3200 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > Did you see this news report of another man wielding a machete and broke into 2 apartments?  They had no weapons and felt helpless as to what to do if he had attacked them with it.  Fortunately, he didn’t, but what if he had?  They were defenseless.
> ...


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 5, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Unlike the rich elitist left wing commies protected by armed guards and behind walls, the middle class who dont have such luxuries, perfect example.
> ...



You do realize the perp didn't have a gun, Right? 

Murderers Murder, It's what they do, they really don't care what tools are available, they go about their business regardless.

their plan to mitigate machete homicides is to prepare themselves and kill him before he can kill his family.

Or are you a complete idiot?


----------



## depotoo (Apr 5, 2018)

You get the Supreme Court filled with just over a majority progressives/Dems, what could happen...


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Apr 5, 2018)

g5000 said:


> What is your proposal for mitigating the 11,000+ gun homicides in the US each year?


What's yours that doesn't involve punishing 99.9999999% of gun owners who are not dangerous?


----------



## Theowl32 (Apr 5, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Unlike the rich elitist left wing commies protected by armed guards and behind walls, the middle class who dont have such luxuries, perfect example.
> ...


Holy shit you are all pathetic retarded ignorant illiterate losers.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

depotoo said:


> Well, let’s see.  There was only a hand gun ban in DC for 32 years that did just that....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good point. It was an overreach by DC and rightfully remedied by the Supreme Court


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

Theowl32 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...


Wow, great response. Your intellect shines through your inability to make a rational point. Keep it up!


----------



## g5000 (Apr 5, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > What is your proposal for mitigating the 11,000+ gun homicides in the US each year?
> ...


I'm pro-gun.  I've offered a proposal many times.

I am curious to know if the topic starter has anything other than rabies foam in his head.


----------



## depotoo (Apr 5, 2018)

Remember this-

On Sept. 24, 1976, one of the toughest gun laws in the nation took effect in the District of Columbia, essentially outlawing the private ownership of new handguns in a city struggling with violence.

Over the next few weeks, a man with a .32-caliber pistol held up workers at a downtown federal office at midday, a cab driver was shot in the head, and a senator was mugged by three youths, one carrying a revolver, near the U.S. Capitol.

Since the ban was passed, more than 8,400 people have been murdered in the district, many killed by handguns. Nearly 80 percent of the 181 murders in 2007 were committed with guns.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in a challenge to the city's handgun ban. The case is likely to produce the most important firearms ruling in generations and could undermine other gun control laws nationwide if the court takes an expansive view of the right to bear arms.
Has DC's Handgun Ban Prevented Bloodshed?


----------



## depotoo (Apr 5, 2018)

*June 1976:* Eighteen months after Congress established home rule for the District, the D.C. Council votes 12 to 1 in favor of a bill restricting city residents from acquiring handguns. The law exempts guards, police officers and owners who had registered their handguns before it took effect. Under the bill, all firearms (including rifles and shotguns, which were not restricted by the law) must be kept unloaded and disassembled, except those in business establishments.

*September 1976:* Attempts in Congress to block the District law fail, clearing the way for it to go into effect.

*July 1977:* The D.C. Council exempts private security firms from the gun bill and removes a requirement that gun owners take vision and gun law tests.

*June 1999:* A House bill carrying an amendment that would have allowed "law-abiding citizens" to own and carry guns in the District is defeated.

*February 2003:* Six D.C. residents sue the city, in a case known as Parker v. the District of Columbia, arguing that the gun law illegally prevents them from keeping guns in their homes.

*April 2003:* Five other D.C. residents, including longtime activist Sandra Seegars, file a separate suit, Seegars v. Ashcroft, against the federal and city governments, saying they have a right to bear arms.

*July 2003:* Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) introduces a measure to end the District's ban on carrying handguns and keeping them in the home. The legislation would also ease registration requirements for firearms and ammunition. It later dies in committee.

*January 2004:* U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton dismisses the Seegars suit.

*March 2004:* U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan dismisses the Parker suit.

*September 2004:* The House votes 250 to 171 to roll back most of the District's gun laws, but the Senate fails to take up the measure before Congress recesses.

*February 2005:* The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upholds the ruling against Seegars, finding that she and other plaintiffs lacked legal standing.

*June 30, 2005:* House votes to repeal District's gun restrictions.

*November 2005:* Congress approves the District's 2006 budget, leaving out a provision that would have prevented the city from enforcing the requirement that guns in homes be kept unloaded and disassembled. The House for the second year in a row votes overwhelmingly in favor of the restriction, but the language is removed in conference before the final passage.

*March 2007:* The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturns U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan's decision in the Parker case, finding that one of the plaintiffs has legal standing because he applied for and was denied a registration certificate to own a handgun. The court finds that the D.C. law illegally bars guns in homes. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) says the city will appeal.

*May 2007:* A federal appeals court in Washington let stand a ruling that struck down a restrictive D.C. ban on gun ownership, setting the stage for a potentially major constitutional battle over the Second Amendment in the Supreme Court.

*September 2007:* The District asks the Supreme Court to uphold its strict 30-year handgun ban. The high court has not ruled on the Second Amendment protection of the right to keep and bear arms since 1939.

*November 2007:* The Supreme Court agrees to rule on D.C. gun ban.

*January 2008:* Acting D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles selects former acting U.S. solicitor general Walter E. Dellinger to defend the District's handgun ban.

*February 2008:* Senate, House members file a amicus brief urging the Supreme Court uphold the ruling that the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment.

*March 2008: *Supreme Court hears arguments.

*June 26, 2008:* Supreme Court strikes down the D.C. ban on handguns.

*July, 2008:* The D.C. Council passes revised gun laws that require registration, background checks and more. The city is sued again weeks later on the basis that its new rules are too onerous.

A History of D.C. Gun Ban


----------



## depotoo (Apr 5, 2018)

And if the Dems ever get the court filled with their majority, what could happen, if they are not Constitutionalists?





Slade3200 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > Well, let’s see.  There was only a hand gun ban in DC for 32 years that did just that....
> ...


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 5, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Unlike the rich elitist left wing commies protected by armed guards and behind walls, the middle class who dont have such luxuries, perfect example.
> ...


I can't stop 11000 murders but If I can stop one (mine or my wife's) that's good enough reason to have a gun


----------



## g5000 (Apr 5, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...


I'm all for you having a gun.  So long as you are an upstanding citizen with no domestic abuse or violent background.

However, you owning a gun does nothing to impact the 11,000+ gun homicides each year.

The liberals are succeeding with their gun grabbing for the same reason they were able to get ObamaCare enacted.  It's because the Right offers NOTHING to solve our problems.

Sooner or later, when confronted with a disaster, and the people are offered NOTHING and Plan A, they will go for Plan A, even if it is stupid or ineffective.

That's why I am challenging the rabies-infected topic starter to provide Plan B.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Apr 5, 2018)

g5000 said:


> I'm pro-gun. I've offered a proposal many times.
> 
> I am curious to know if the topic starter has anything other than rabies foam in his head.


Fair enough, but in the OPs defense---

There is no REAL or effective solution other than everyone being responsible for their own personal security.  Any other solution will not fix that problem.   I will be HAPPY to go through each proposed solution one by one, and demonstrate how I am right.


----------



## g5000 (Apr 5, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm pro-gun. I've offered a proposal many times.
> ...


Many advanced nations have found solutions which have drastically reduced their homicide rates.  So to say there is no effective solution is a total fabrication.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

depotoo said:


> And if the Dems ever get the court filled with their majority, what could happen, if they are not Constitutionalists?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The DC ban was a 12-1 vote of their city council... it is not a part of the Democratic Party national policy platform.

Here is the dilemma for constitutionalist. Guns have grown exponentially more destructive and lethal since the writing of the constitution and for our public safety many people, regardless of political party support the need for regulation on who buys and what is sold. Most people would agree that a crazy guy shouldn’t be able to go buy a machine gun for example. Many people also don’t see the regulated militia to stand up to a tyrannical government clause as relevant anymore. 

So we have two options, revise the second amendment, which we all know is impossible, or we regulate around it like we have been.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Apr 5, 2018)

g5000 said:


> The liberals are succeeding with their gun grabbing for the same reason they were able to get ObamaCare enacted. It's because the Right offers NOTHING to solve our problems.


This is a function of the duopoly failing to FIRST properly identify the real problem, and SECOND determine whether government can solve said problem, BEFORE moving to step THREE, start drafting legislation.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 5, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



How about the cities where the most murder take place do something abut it?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Apr 5, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Many advanced nations have found solutions which have drastically reduced their homicide rates. So to say there is no effective solution is a total fabrication.


There are no effective solutions that will avoid restraining the 99.999999%, other than what is already being done.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...


What if you can stop 1 murder by limiting the firepower or magazine capacity of a gun in a school shooters hands. Say 16 deaths instead of 17 cause he had less bullets or had to reload... would that be worth it?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 5, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



No.

Because all he would have to do is bring more than one gun or more than one magazine


----------



## g5000 (Apr 5, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > The liberals are succeeding with their gun grabbing for the same reason they were able to get ObamaCare enacted. It's because the Right offers NOTHING to solve our problems.
> ...


Well, in the case of health care, government is the problem.  We need LESS government in health care.  So the Right should be offering a solution to health care which involves less government. Instead, they offer NOTHING.

So to throw up one's hands and offer NOTHING means we will end up with the Democrats' Plan A.  And then the Democrats' Plan B.  And so on.


----------



## GreenBean (Apr 5, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



*EXAMPLES PLEASE -  *


----------



## depotoo (Apr 5, 2018)

I’m sorry, but that is just naive.   





Slade3200 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > And if the Dems ever get the court filled with their majority, what could happen, if they are not Constitutionalists?
> ...


----------



## g5000 (Apr 5, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...


This is a good line of questioning.

If we make it more difficult to obtain guns, then we save lives.  This has proven to be the case in other advanced nations.


----------



## EGR one (Apr 5, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Unlike the rich elitist left wing commies protected by armed guards and behind walls, the middle class who dont have such luxuries, perfect example.
> ...



Begin public hangings for everyone of them that are caught and convicted.  Give them one year to appeal their convictions and then hang them in the neighborhood they came from.  The homicide rate would definitely decrease.


----------



## g5000 (Apr 5, 2018)

I would be able to obtain a gun in any advanced nation, even the ones with strict gun control.

I would not be able to buy any gun I wish, but nor am I able to do that here.  I would love to own a fully automatic Tommy gun.  I have always wanted one.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 5, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



It has not been proven.

The UK saw a rise in their murder rate after they passed ultra strict gun laws and their murder rate did not fall below what it was before the ban






In fact the murder rate in London is greater than the murder rate in NYC despite the strict UK gun laws

So how do you explain that?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


If he brought the same amount of guns and the same amount of magazines but they had less capacity and firepower then there would be less damage. Common sense man


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

depotoo said:


> I’m sorry, but that is just naive.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You forgot to explain why... did you think I was just going to take your word on it?


----------



## g5000 (Apr 5, 2018)

My proposal would be to register gun buyers, not guns.

In Canada, buying a gun takes about 60 days. Licensing agents are required to advise an applicant's spouse or next-of-kin prior to granting a license.  In fact, they have to notify any significant other you lived with in the prior two  years that you are buying a gun.  And you have to take a gun safety course.

I would propose something similar.  You take a safety course, and an in-depth background check is performed.  I don't know how I feel about notifying your spouse or significant other you are buying a gun, but my wife likes that idea a lot. I could see how women would like this idea.

Once you meet these requirements, you are certified as a legal gun buyer.

Then you can go into any gun shop and the salesman can check your legal status on the computer.  Then you can buy whatever you wish, and the government is not informed of what you bought.

Once you are certified as a legal gun buyer, you can buy or not buy guns, and the government won't know the difference.


----------



## g5000 (Apr 5, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


In Canada, magazines are limited to 5 rounds!


----------



## g5000 (Apr 5, 2018)

GreenBean said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> ...



For example, our homicide rate is three times times higher than Canada's.

Our gun homicide rate is 42 times higher.

I have outlined Canada's gun control laws in post 41.


----------



## g5000 (Apr 5, 2018)

In Canada, you can own an AR-15 but AK-47s are banned outright.

Weird, right?

Your AR-15 can only be fired at a gun range, and you have to be licensed.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


To be clear, is your graphic showing a range of 11-18 homicides per million people per year?


----------



## g5000 (Apr 5, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


You are missing the forest for the trees!

The UK has always had stricter gun control than the US.

So look at the left side of your chart.  Notice anything?

The homicide rate in the UK is 0.92 per 100,000.

The homicide rate in the US is 4.88 per 100,000.

Our murder rate is more than five times that of the UK.

Whoever made that chart had to show murders per MILLION to make the homicide problem look bigger than it is.

Even at their worst period, their homicide rate was only about a third of ours.


----------



## Doc1 (Apr 5, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Unlike the rich elitist left wing commies protected by armed guards and behind walls, the middle class who dont have such luxuries, perfect example.
> ...



Stick to the topic boy, lose your control issues. As the video shows , a gun is a great way to stop a murder.


----------



## EGR one (Apr 5, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



Only if you are fixated on numbers.  One murder equals a thousand murders.  People die individually, and are mourned individually by their family and friends.  The seven year old shot and killed in his front yard by a gangbanger that couldn't shoot straight, is just as horrible to his family as each of the seventeen teenagers deaths were to their families.  The sole difference was the selective attention of the national news media.


----------



## depotoo (Apr 5, 2018)

That only shows thru 2011.  It is even much higher now.





Skull Pilot said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


----------



## depotoo (Apr 5, 2018)

London murder rate overtakes New York as knife crime rises
But British politicians and police are increasingly expressing concern about London’s rising murder rate, which is driven by a surge in knife crime. Of the 47 murders in London so far this year, 31 have been committed with knives. 

Britain’s interior ministry said it was consulting on new laws to further restrict dangerous weapons, including banning online stores from delivering knives to residential addresses and making it an offence to possess certain weapons in public.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 5, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Unlike the rich elitist left wing commies protected by armed guards and behind walls, the middle class who dont have such luxuries, perfect example.
> ...


He said all that needed to be said in the title but the stupid forum rules require we drool a little in an opening post.


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2018)

g5000 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...







How many black and Hispanic gang members (who commit 80% of our violent gun crimes) does Canada have?


----------



## g5000 (Apr 5, 2018)

depotoo said:


> London murder rate overtakes New York as knife crime rises
> But British politicians and police are increasingly expressing concern about London’s rising murder rate, which is driven by a surge in knife crime. Of the 47 murders in London so far this year, 31 have been committed with knives.
> 
> Britain’s interior ministry said it was consulting on new laws to further restrict dangerous weapons, including banning online stores from delivering knives to residential addresses and making it an offence to possess certain weapons in public.


Cherry picking.

The UK homicide rate is less than a fifth of ours.

And that article refers to a very narrow two month period.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

depotoo said:


> London murder rate overtakes New York as knife crime rises
> But British politicians and police are increasingly expressing concern about London’s rising murder rate, which is driven by a surge in knife crime. Of the 47 murders in London so far this year, 31 have been committed with knives.
> 
> Britain’s interior ministry said it was consulting on new laws to further restrict dangerous weapons, including banning online stores from delivering knives to residential addresses and making it an offence to possess certain weapons in public.


Why is knife crime rising? Would you rather go up against a guy with a knife or a guy with a gun?


----------



## g5000 (Apr 5, 2018)

westwall said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...


Crime is not cause by race.  It is primarily caused by poverty.


----------



## EGR one (Apr 5, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



The USA is not, and never has been, like other advanced nations.  Americans are independent minded, distrustful of government at all levels, and resistant to any government effort to control their wants.

Prohibition and the war on drugs has pretty well proven that Americans will get what they want, when they want it, whether government likes it or not.  Millions of semi-automatic weapons are in the hands of criminals and the black market that supplies them.  Neither you, nor the government, has a snowball's chance in hell of getting those guns away from them.


----------



## g5000 (Apr 5, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > London murder rate overtakes New York as knife crime rises
> ...


I'd rather go up against a guy with a knife with my gun.


----------



## g5000 (Apr 5, 2018)

EGR one said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


So, in short, your solution is NOTHING.

Meanwhile, the Left is offering Plan A, and Plan B, and so forth.

This is how the Left advances.


----------



## EGR one (Apr 5, 2018)

g5000 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



Murder, by gun, or any other weapon, has little to do with poverty.  And, since the vast majority of those in poverty do not commit crimes, the poverty defense is nonsense.  Hopelessness is the driver of violent crime, including gang banging.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

EGR one said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Huh? Where do you that stat from? I’d be willing to bet that the vast majority of criminals in jail and gang bangers in the streets are in or from poverty. I see it first hand with the youth I work with in my community. Poverty is a huge driver of crime, how can you think otherwise?


----------



## g5000 (Apr 5, 2018)

EGR one said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Horrible illogic.

It is idiotic to claim poverty doesn't cause crime just because there are poor who don't commit crime!  Holy shit!

The poor commit crimes way out of proportion to their demographic.

Poverty is a primary cause of crime.

Why the hell do you think kids join gangs?  Because of poverty.

You don't see rich kids gang banging.


----------



## Doc1 (Apr 5, 2018)

EGR one said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You have to excuse g, he thinks he is an expert at everything. People kill people, not guns. People kill people for a lot of reasons but to  Progressive like g it's never the person's fault, it's always do to circumstance or whatever else, but NEVER the "person".


----------



## EGR one (Apr 5, 2018)

g5000 said:


> EGR one said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



To the contrary, my plan is to make deliberate murder, or  manslaughter of an innocent while attempting to commit murder a capital crime requiring the death sentence.  That sentence to be carried out in public within one year of the conviction.  Hang the perpetrator in his own neighborhood.  

Mass murderers who die on the scene, should be publicly dumped into a garbage truck and hauled off to a landfill.  His/her relatives could retrieve the body there, if they desire to do so.  If the mass murderer survives, he should be put in chains and dragged off to jail through the streets where he can feel the wrath of an enraged community.  Mass shootings would become rare.


----------



## Timmy (Apr 5, 2018)

You gun nuts would make it possible for machete guy to have an AR 15 instead .


----------



## EGR one (Apr 5, 2018)

g5000 said:


> EGR one said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



You cannot claim a cause and effect if the majority or the population affected by the cause do not experience the effect.  Kids join gangs because they see no other future for themselves.  A large number of gang bangers do not expect to reach adulthood.  Correlation is not cause and effect.

Rich kids are not hopeless.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 5, 2018)

Timmy said:


> You gun nuts would make it possible for machete guy to have an AR 15 instead .


Lets see, FBI fails to do background check, and guy of 19 years old, gets to shoot 14 children.  Guy who fails background check, cant get to shoot 14 children goes to Walmart buys a machete and tries to kill a family but is shot.  You libtards want the government to stop guns, yet fails all the time.  I will keep my weapons, just to keep fuckers like you out of my house.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

Doc1 said:


> EGR one said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...


It’s always the person, but they use guns to kill so guns can’t just be ignored. They are tools for death and destruction so they need to be handled responsibility. It’s not a hard concept


----------



## g5000 (Apr 5, 2018)

EGR one said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > EGR one said:
> ...


So you are actually confirming what I said about poverty.  Duh!

Crime is not racial, it is economics.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

EGR one said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > EGR one said:
> ...


They used to do all that stuff 100s of years ago. How did it work out?


----------



## EGR one (Apr 5, 2018)

Timmy said:


> You gun nuts would make it possible for machete guy to have an AR 15 instead .



It is already possible for machete guy to have an AR-15, if he so desired, and had the funds to purchase one.  Obviously, he thought the machete would do the job.


g5000 said:


> My proposal would be to register gun buyers, not guns.
> 
> In Canada, buying a gun takes about 60 days. Licensing agents are required to advise an applicant's spouse or next-of-kin prior to granting a license.  In fact, they have to notify any significant other you lived with in the prior two  years that you are buying a gun.  And you have to take a gun safety course.
> 
> ...



If you need government permission to exercise a right, then it is no longer a right.  Besides, conditions change, circumstances change, people change, and mental health changes.  That is why driver licenses need to be renewed.  

In addition, it would be far too easy for government to price the poor out of gun ownership through the cost of the license.


----------



## EGR one (Apr 5, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> EGR one said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



It worked out very well.  No recidivism.


----------



## depotoo (Apr 5, 2018)

You must listen to it all the way thru


Mayor *Dianne Feinstein [now U.S. Senator, D.-Cal.]* moved yesterday to make San Francisco the nation's first major city to ban handguns for personal use.



             UPI, Feinstein Seeks To Ban Handguns In San Francisco, Feb. 26, 1982.



* * *


             Former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, San Antonio Mayor *Henry Cisneros* and Baltimore Mayor *Kurt Schmoke* signed the Communitarian Network's The Case for Domestic Disarmament, which among other thing said:



             There is little sense in gun registration.  What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . .  Domestic disarmament entails the *removal of arms from private hands* . . . .  Given the proper political support by the people who oppose the pro-gun lobby, legislation to remove the guns from private hands, acts like the legislation drafted by Senator John Chafee [to ban handguns], can be passed in short order.



* * *


             I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . .  It is time to act.  We cannot go on like this.  Ban them!



*Sen. John H. Chafee* (R.-R.I.), In View of Handguns' Effects, There's Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992, at 13A.



* * *


             "My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill.  We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets.  Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use.  But that's the endgame.  And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation."   Evan Osnos, Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 5, 1999, at C3 (quoting *Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.)*).



* * *


             Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition.  It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns.  It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind.



*Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, N.Y.),* 139 Cong. Rec. H9088 at H9094, Nov. 10, 1993.



* * *


*Rep. William L. Clay (D-St. Louis, Mo.),* said the Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns.  "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases," Clay said.



             Robert L. Koenig, NRA-Backed Measure May Derail Brady Bill, St. Louis Post Dispatch, May 8, 1993, at 1A.



* * *


*Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran* is proposing a wide-ranging package of laws that would make the state's gun control regulations among the strictest in the nation and says his ultimate goal is a ban on handguns.



             Daniel LeDuc, Tough Laws For Guns Proposed In Maryland; Attorney General Says Goal Is Ban, Wash. Post, Oct. 20, 1999, at A01.



* * *


             [Peter] Jennings:  And the effect of the assault rifle ban in Stockton?  The price went up, gun stores sold out and police say that fewer than 20 were turned in.  Still, some people in Stockton argue you cannot measure the effect that way. They believe there's value in making a statement that the implements of violence are unacceptable in our culture.



*[Stockton, California] Mayor [Barbara] Fass*:  I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" -- quote -- to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be.  But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step.



             ABC News Special, Peter Jennings Reporting: Guns, April 11, 1991, available on LEXIS, NEWS database, SCRIPT file.



* * *


             In a high-stakes political gamble, [*Democrat*-Farmer-Labor *Minnesota*] *gubernatorial candidate* Tony Bouza proposed a strict gun control program Tuesday that includes the confiscation and purchase by the state of most privately owned handguns.



             Robert Whereatt, Bouza Says He'd Confiscate Majority of Handguns, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Sept. 7, 1994, at 1A.  (In Minnesota, the Democratic party is known as the Democrat-Farmer-Labor party.) 
http://gunscholar.com/gunban.htm

So don’t say there hasn’t been a push for it.  They are just more quiet than they used to be, attempting incremental steps to.


----------



## EGR one (Apr 5, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> EGR one said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



The fact that most criminals and gang bangers come from poor and poverty stricken neighborhoods does not mean that the poverty is the cause.  Evidence to the contrary is that most of those in poverty do not commit crimes.  

Many in poverty are taught by peers, schools, and the media that they have little chance at a positive future.  That hopelessness is the cause that you are looking for.


----------



## g5000 (Apr 5, 2018)

EGR one said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > EGR one said:
> ...


Wow. I just can't fight this kind of stupidity.  Sorry.

The fact is that people living in poverty commit a level of crime which far exceeds their demographic.  You are actually retarded enough to believe poverty has nothing to do with it just because ALL poor people are not committing crime!

HOLY SHIT!!!

And then you blame gang bangers being gang bangers because of "hoplessness".  And why are they hopeless, dipshit?  Because they live in poverty!


----------



## EGR one (Apr 5, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Doc1 said:
> 
> 
> > EGR one said:
> ...



The vast majority of guns are handled responsibly.  In fact, gun owners are a hell of a lot more responsible in the handling of guns than automobile owners are in the handling of their automobiles.  And, the death toll is so much higher.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

EGR one said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > EGR one said:
> ...


Then why doesn’t it still exist. Surely a system that works very well should still be actively in use, right?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 5, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> EGR one said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...


There never was a repeat offender.....


----------



## EGR one (Apr 5, 2018)

g5000 said:


> EGR one said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



You don't seem to understand your own argument.  Let me type slow, maybe that will help you comprehend the obvious.  People are not all hopeless because they live in poverty.  Hopelessness is a subset of those in poverty.  Most criminals and gang bangers come from that subset.  They see no future for themselves, and therefore, figure they have nothing to lose by getting what they can now.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 5, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Unlike the rich elitist left wing commies protected by armed guards and behind walls, the middle class who dont have such luxuries, perfect example.
> ...


No plan but since they represent less than a percent of a percent of the population I see no real problem you don't mind 30000 dead from cars or 200000 dead from bad doctors so I see no problem at all.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

EGR one said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > EGR one said:
> ...


I could use your same tactic and say that hopelessness doesn’t cause crimes, there are many who are hopeless that don’t commit crimes, it’s violent tendencies and poor mental health that drive people to violence. It’s a pointless game of semantics. But we all know that poverty sets up and triggers many of those condidtions


----------



## g5000 (Apr 5, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...


Actually I do mind those deaths.  Stop building bullshit straw men.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

EGR one said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Doc1 said:
> ...


That’s great, they should be


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 5, 2018)

g5000 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...


And yet no demands to ban private ownership of cars or more stringent controls on doctors Juts demand we ban firearms go figure.


----------



## g5000 (Apr 5, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...


Thank you for demonstrating my point about NOTHING so starkly.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

andaronjim said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > EGR one said:
> ...


Why don’t those systems exist anymore?


----------



## EGR one (Apr 5, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> EGR one said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



The mafia used it very effectively just a couple of decades ago.  Lilly livered social elites and politicians are the reason that it takes twenty to thirty years to carry out a death sentence, if it is ever carried out at all.  No one can even remember why the person is being executed.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 5, 2018)

EGR one said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > EGR one said:
> ...


Actually States take that long NOT the Federal Government.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

EGR one said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > EGR one said:
> ...


Therefore Poverty is a problem that contributes to people being triggered and/driven towards violence.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

EGR one said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > EGR one said:
> ...


Did you not understand my question or were you intentionally diverting ?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 5, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


Because bleeding heart liberals stopped executing the murderers and rapists(like Ted Kennedy and Charles Manson) and set free, the child molesters, because it was inhumane to keep mentally ill people locked up..


----------



## Doc1 (Apr 5, 2018)

EGR one said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Doc1 said:
> ...



Of course they but these people always gravitate to the extreme.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 5, 2018)

Theowl32 said:


> Unlike the rich elitist left wing commies protected by armed guards and behind walls, the middle class who dont have such luxuries, perfect example.
> 
> Gentleman breaking into the persons home with a machete with the intention of killing the man and his wife.
> 
> Fucking left wingers are losers. Esepcially the rich hypocritical white ones.



So sick and sad.
I know a man who happened to buy a gun and go through training a few weeks
before a big muscular man, who might have been high on something and set up to
do a hit scare, broke into his home with a bat. To protect his wife and child upstairs,
the homeowner tried to confront this intruder at the stairs and warned him to stand back
or he'd shoot. The intruder lunged and swung the bat at him, who is a slight man a lot
lighter than the attacker, and shot him dead in his own home.

He suffered anxiety and grief over this. It was sad that some professional trainer ended up dead who had a family might have been hired by the wrong people to go threaten the wrong person. 

Theowl32 
If liberals want gun free zones and schools, let them set those up privately.
Pay for these schools and run them how you want.
Let other taxpayers students and parents pay and run their own sites
and enforce 'crime free' zones.

So if you agree to no guns you go to work and school there.
If you agree to commit no abuses or crimes, and to get
help for you or anyone with an abuse or addiction issue,
then you go live and work in a crime free zone.

which do you think the teachers and police unions want to send workers?
a gun free zone where they have to worry about
being the only security that can stop a shooter?
or a crime free zone where no residents are allowed
to enter or live in the district if they don't agree
with compliance and go through screening or counseling for any issues?


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 5, 2018)

andaronjim said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...



andaronjim 
and because liberals don't promote but reject Christian spiritual healing
that has been used to cure causes of mental illness, homocidal and suicidal depression,
schizophrenia, addictions and abuse, and even criminal illness include some pedophilia cases.

When I bring up the idea of more formal medical research and development
of spiritual healing to cut the costs of diseases and crime,
I get a bunch of flack from liberals who assume this is fake religion.

So because they don't want Christians to be right,
they'd rather people die from lack of access to cure! Sad.

The solutions are already known but censored by the leftwing rejection of
anything from Christians and Conservatives they fear will take over
www.christianhealingmin.org
www.healingisyours.com


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

andaronjim said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


How did these bleeding heart liberals with, as you describe, ineffective and counterproductive  views, gain so much power to be able to institute these kind of changes? And why wouldn’t the old system go back to using the “effective” tactics once the changes proved to be ineffective?


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2018)

g5000 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > London murder rate overtakes New York as knife crime rises
> ...







Yes, and they don't have black and Hispanic gang bangers who commit 80% of the gun crime here.


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...







Oh?  So it's OK for you to have a gun, but no one else?  Is that what I'm getting here?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

emilynghiem said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


Christian groups shot themselves in the foot when they got politically active to oppose gay rights and label them as perverts and sinners


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > London murder rate overtakes New York as knife crime rises
> ...







Knife crime is increasing as is gun crime.  The reason is the UK is finally getting a nice large influx of third world people who are bringing their culture of violence with them.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

westwall said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...


Hopefully they can address this problem by improving assimilation, education, and community involvement


----------



## Thinker101 (Apr 5, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



Assimilation, education and community involvement can have an affect but it will take years.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

Thinker101 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Yeah, I don’t think an immediate long term solution exists


----------



## Doc1 (Apr 5, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



Islam, "real" Islam rejects assimilation.


----------



## Thinker101 (Apr 5, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



So don't you feel not letting people come into the country illegally would be a solution?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

Doc1 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Then people with those values shouldnt immigrate, I don’t see why they would want to. I’d assume the vast majority of Muslim immigrants aren’t of that mindset. I know many Muslims and don’t know one that doesn’t want to assimilate


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

Thinker101 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Thinker101 said:
> ...


yeah of course, why would anybody encourage people to break the law? I think it’s a false accusation that the left wants that


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Apr 5, 2018)

g5000 said:


> My proposal would be to register gun buyers, not guns.
> 
> In Canada, buying a gun takes about 60 days. Licensing agents are required to advise an applicant's spouse or next-of-kin prior to granting a license.  In fact, they have to notify any significant other you lived with in the prior two  years that you are buying a gun.  And you have to take a gun safety course.
> 
> ...


I would submit to a firearms owner registration if it meant no restrictions on the type of firearm I could purchase, including full autos.  I don't care if they know that I am a gun owner.  They already know that anyway.


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...








Good luck with that.  We have been working on them for over fifty years and there has been no marked decrease in their violent crime rate.  It is a multi generational project to change their views and how they deal with conflict.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Apr 5, 2018)

So, if we did the following for all new firearm purchases:

Thorough background check that takes 60 days to complete; and
Mandatory training course.
After which, the person is certified as a registered gun buyer, would that be enough to shut the left up and repeal all remaining federal gun laws, allowing for registered buyers to purchase or construct Short-Barrel Rifles and full autos without restriction or additional cost?

*Add to this new bill*, that all other federal gun laws are repealed, and the mere introduction to Congress of any additional legislation aimed at further firearm restrictions would immediately and automatically repeal this law, making the purchase, construction, or conversion of any firearm by any person unrestricted, including children, retards, felons, and bat-shit crazy people.


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> So, if we did the following for all new firearm purchases:
> 
> Thorough background check that takes 60 days to complete; and
> Mandatory training course.
> After which, the person is certified as a registered gun buyer, would that be enough to shut the left up and repeal all remaining federal gun laws, allowing for registered buyers to purchase or construct Short-Barrel Rifles and full autos without restriction or additional cost?







I could go for that.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Apr 5, 2018)

westwall said:


> I could go for that.


But, see my update.  We know how the left loves to take just a little bit more when they can.


----------



## Doc1 (Apr 5, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I could go for that.
> ...



That's what they do, they take two steps forward, get push back and retreat one step. They still gained the step they wanted.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

westwall said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


We can’t change their views, we can set an example for how we run things in our country, create laws and then enforce them. Other than that working on eduction, community involment and economic opportunity are the best areas for us to increase efforts


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Apr 5, 2018)

Doc1 said:


> That's what they do, they take two steps forward, get push back and retreat one step. They still gained the step they wanted.


That's why I threw that update in there.  It would repeal all gun laws but that one, and the mere introduction of a gun bill before Congress would immediately and automatically repeal that statute, making it an unrestricted free-for-all.

That's the only way we can be certain that the left will not pull the bate and switch, like they have done for generations.  

Only then would I allow such legislation.  

This operates to expose the left for what they really want--total ban and confiscation.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 5, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



If ifs and buts were candy and nut, we'd all have a merry Christmas.

Anyone hell bent on murder will bring whatever he thinks he needs to get the job done so instead of one rifle and 5 30 round mags he'll bring 15 10 round mags if he has it in his twisted mind that he needs 150 rounds

Or he'll bring 2 rifles or any combination of rifles and handguns etc


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 5, 2018)

g5000 said:


> My proposal would be to register gun buyers, not guns.
> 
> In Canada, buying a gun takes about 60 days. Licensing agents are required to advise an applicant's spouse or next-of-kin prior to granting a license.  In fact, they have to notify any significant other you lived with in the prior two  years that you are buying a gun.  And you have to take a gun safety course.
> 
> ...



No thanks.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 5, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



Ok so in 1950 what were those guns laws?

In 1950's the UK had a murder rate of .8 per 100000

they passed a spate of very tough gun laws in the 60's yet their murder rate rose through the 80s

They passed more gun laws in the 90's yet their murder rate still climbed it has since dropped but it has never dropped below the level it was before the 60's

If more gun laws means less murders how do you explain this?

And if more gun laws mean less murders how do you explain the fact that the murder rate in London now surpasses that of New York City?

I've told you people where our murder problem is and it isn't the entire country as you seem to believe.

70% of all murders occur in very distinct small areas of just 5% of all the counties in the country.  We know which areas they are.  We know that the murders are mostly young urban minorities killing other young urban minorities.

Is there an analog of this particular socioeconomic, cultural urban phenomenon in the UK?

It seems to me this generational type of entrenched violence is poverty driven as these murder islands are historically depressed urban areas.

Maybe we need to address this not with more social programs but by actually moving people out of the cities into other areas of their respective states


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 5, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



They used murder per millions because whole numbers are easier to graph you moron

If you have half a brain you can figure out that 5 per million = .5 per 100000

So I guess you don't have half a brain


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 5, 2018)

Timmy said:


> You gun nuts would make it possible for machete guy to have an AR 15 instead .


If he wanted and could have afforded one he would have had one laws or no laws


----------



## Thinker101 (Apr 5, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



Wait a minute, aren't there 10's of thousands that are already here illegally, aren't there something like 800,000 on DACA, isn't there a caravan headed our way?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Sure if he wants 150 rounds but who thinks like that? I don’t think many. Most people get a gun and then some extra magazines that they may or may not take with them. 

And wouldn’t you rather a nutball need to carry 15 magazines and reload 15 times as opposed to 5? Each reload is time to run or disarm the guy.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

Thinker101 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Thinker101 said:
> ...


There are millions here... over a million DACA and a caravan headed here who shouldn’t be allowed in unless they go through the legal immigration or refuge process.


----------



## Thinker101 (Apr 5, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



And what about the millions already here illegally?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

Thinker101 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Thinker101 said:
> ...


I think they should be held accountable


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


That doesn’t necessarily mean deportation though. Don’t think that is realistic at this point


----------



## Thinker101 (Apr 5, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Thinker101 said:
> ...



The number already here illegally is a tough one...although if it doesn't start, it will never end.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 5, 2018)

Thinker101 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


We need to fix the immigration system to better monitor everybody that enters this country. It shouldn’t be a 10 year process to immigrate here... as for those already here, there needs to be an option to gain legal status that doesn’t involve deportation. Create a domestic program to rebuild America and give qualifying illegals the option of entering the program and contribute, otherwise, bye bye. I should work like the Millitary, which could also be an option.


----------



## Thinker101 (Apr 5, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



Although is we start deporting, the backlog in the courts would diminish greatly.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Apr 5, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Sure if he wants 150 rounds but who thinks like that? I don’t think many. Most people get a gun and then some extra magazines that they may or may not take with them.
> 
> And wouldn’t you rather a nutball need to carry 15 magazines and reload 15 times as opposed to 5? Each reload is time to run or disarm the guy.


In theory, I suppose.  The time it takes to drop and reload is less that a second.

Wouldn't a more realistic option be to shoot back at him, rather than try to take him down bare-handed?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 5, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


The time to reload is minuscule.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Sure if he wants 150 rounds but who thinks like that? I don’t think many. Most people get a gun and then some extra magazines that they may or may not take with them.
> ...


Sure, if a cop or security guard or permitted armed citizen is around


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Well that depends on the gun and where you are storing your bullets


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...





> How did these bleeding heart liberals with, as you describe, ineffective and counterproductive views, gain so much power to be able to institute these kind of changes?


 Because idiots like you and the Obamaphone lady were more interested in FREE stuff than keeping criminals out of society.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


And you're the expert on how people hell bent on murder think?

FYI Cruz only had 10 round magazines
What stopped him was a jammed gun because it was a piece of shit and he didn't know how to operate it very well


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

andaronjim said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


Ok, keep telling yourself that


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


That’s a great example. How many do you think would be dead if he had 30 round magazines?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



No more since it takes about a second and a half to drop and swap a magazine.

Did you see this yet


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


  I know all about it, it is you that cant seem to pull your head out of your dumb ass.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Are you really not getting it or are you just trying to be difficult? 

He brought a gun with some magazines. If his magazines would have held 30 rounds instead of 10 there would have been more shots and more dead. You said yourself he had a shitty gun that locked up that cut him short and prevented more from dying. Same concept


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

andaronjim said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


Haha, look at you fucking puppets posting the same crap back to back. That’s funny


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Sure if he wants 150 rounds but who thinks like that? I don’t think many. Most people get a gun and then some extra magazines that they may or may not take with them.
> ...



But seriously, with today's technology, a high capacity magazine would be easy to 3D print.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...





> look at you fucking puppets


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

andaronjim said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


Why can’t I pull my head out of my ass? Because I don’t want to drag bodies through the streets and go back to public executions? You’re insane man, and you jumping to Obamaphones is a pathetic attempt at trying to justify something that you are obviously incapable of justifying. Go in the corner and suck on your thumb for a bit, you’ll feel better


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


I bought over 30, 30 round magazines not only for the .223,  but the .308 also.  Not one of those magazines have been used for the 2 legged squirrels....yet...


----------



## Stormy Daniels (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> What is your proposal for mitigating the 11,000+ gun homicides in the US each year?



Clearly the best option is to convert them into 11,000+ knife, bomb, and poisoning deaths.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




About the same....since the  Virginia Tech shooter murdered 32 people with 2 pistols and a mix of 10 round and 15 round magazines.....the problem isn't the magazine the attacker uses, the problem  is he is using magazines in democrat gun free zones where the  victims are unarmed and unable to fight back.

The math is simple....

Florida, no armed guard, no armed staff, 17 dead.

Maryland ....one armed guard, 1 dead.

See the difference?

Then you have the deadliest tool of all...the rental truck.  Had he simply used a rental truck he could have killed a lot more people....the muslim terrorist in Nice, France used a rental truck and murdered 86 people in 5 minutes.....more people murdered in one go than in any of our mass public shootings.....

Rental trucks are deadlier than guns .....


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...





> I don’t want to drag bodies through the streets and go back to public executions?


 I thought the science was settled so no "innocent" person could be executed for crimes he didn't do.  Why do you want people who murder, rape and child molest to get free over and over, thus having rap sheets a mile long?  Are they your future Democrat voters, or brownshirt army?


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

andaronjim said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> ...



Return em, they must be defective.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

andaronjim said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


Do you have a right wing propaganda site you go to to get all these fun little pictures and videos?! That’s special. But we all know it’s bullshit. You can keep blubbering about these evil liberals. And there might even be a few that fit the mold. But that has nothing to do with me or my views so you really just come off sounding like even more of an idiot.


----------



## g5000 (Apr 6, 2018)

Stormy Daniels said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > What is your proposal for mitigating the 11,000+ gun homicides in the US each year?
> ...


Nope.  I've already shown that advanced nations with stricter gun control have a far lower homicide rate.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


You asked why people would vote for the party that gives liberal compassion to lunatic murderers.  I said it was the free stuff, which you know is the truth....


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


Then make them go 3D print one... no need to make it easy and readily available in stores. 

They could go make a machine gun too if they had the know how. Bombs as well. I’m not seeing your point


----------



## Stormy Daniels (Apr 6, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Leftists would prosecute the guy with the gun, because...guns are bad, mmmkay.



You mean like this guy who was charged with 2nd degree murder?

A man's home is his castle, except in Maryland. Man shoots intruder at 2am, gets charged with murder - Bullets First


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...





> evil liberals


Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals


> *Opening page - Dedication*
> “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom —* Lucifer.”*


 Care to explain this?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


If either shooter had a machine gun is there any doubt there wouldn’t have been more deaths? I think not. Luckily, machine guns are heavily regulated. Get the point?

Also Parkland wasn’t gun free, there was an armed deputy on campus


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> ...


Of course if they put God back in public schools teaching good and evil, right from wrong, not 50 shades of grey, plenty of the violence on the street would go away.  But then 47% of the voting base, that didn't vote for Romney would never vote Democrat again, if they knew the truth...


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> ...



Murderers Murder, it is what they do. Limiting their tools is not the answer, if a murderer wants to murder, they find a way.

You think limiting law abiding citizens from a tool to defend themselves against someone that wants to murder or rape them will stop them, you are naive. Murderers murder and rapists rape. I, for one, don't want to make their job easier.


----------



## Stormy Daniels (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> ...



In that case, you should be forced to 3D print your computer, paper, pens, and anything else you use to exercise your 1st amendment rights.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


If either shooter had crock pot bombs, there is no doubt there would be more deaths.  Want to continue with straw man arguments?  If the Police and FBI did their job, neither shootings would of occurred...


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

andaronjim said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


I don’t want people who rape, murder and molest to get free over and over. You’re just making shit up again. You are completely clueless. Do yourself a favor and stop talking because you don’t know anything about what you are saying.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




Yes, there is doubt....since he was working in a building, and considering his inexperience he would have likely had a malfunction sooner in the process.....

Parkland was gun free......there were 3,000 students and staff and over 10 buildings on campus....and one armed resource officer who stayed outside instead of attacking the killer....

Law abiding gun owners were not allowed to carry their legal guns on campus..

It was a democrat gun free zone.


----------



## Stormy Daniels (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Stormy Daniels said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



If you like data so much, then you must also explain why US homicide rates continue to decline at the same time as those other nations, even as US gun laws have become more lax.  Since you can't explain that, the only logical conclusion is to recognize that the existence of guns does not create violence, people create violence.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> ...




You are irrational...magazine capacity has no bearing on casualty rates in mass shootings........

Here...educate yourself....

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary  Kleck :: SSRN

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings? 
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading. 
*LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings. *
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
 There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload. 
*In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change. *
*Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.*

*--------*

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

 LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

 Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


 For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1). 

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

 Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011. 

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

 Specifically, we searched for 

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession, 

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine, 

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident, 

(4) the types of guns possessed, 

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident, 

(6) the number of rounds fired,

 (7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter. 

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

 We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


 Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper. 

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013. 

-----

How Often Have Bystanders Intervened While a Mass Shooter Was Trying to Reload?

 First, we consider the issue of how many times people have disrupted a mass shooting while the shooter was trying to load a detachable magazine into a semiautomatic gun.

 Note that 16 it is irrelevant whether interveners have stopped a shooter while trying to reload some other type of gun, using other kinds of magazines, since we are addressing the potential significance of restrictions on the capacity of detachable magazines which are used only with semiautomatic firearms. 

Thus, bystander intervention directed at shooters using other types of guns that take much longer to reload than a semiautomatic gun using detachable magazines could not provide any guidance as to the likelihood of bystander intervention when the shooter was using a semiautomatic gun equipped with detachable magazines that can be reloaded very quickly.

 Prospective interveners would presumably be more likely to tackle a shooter who took a long time to reload than one who took only 2-4 seconds to do so. 

Likewise, bystander interventions that occurred at a time when the shooter was not reloading (e.g., when he was struggling with a defective gun or magazine) are irrelevant, since that kind of intervention could occur regardless of what kinds of magazines or firearms the shooter was using. 


It is the need to reload detachable magazines sooner and more often that differentiates shooters using smaller detachable magazines from those using larger ones. 

For the period 1994-2013 inclusive, we identified three mass shooting incidents in which it was claimed that interveners disrupted the shooting by tackling the shooter while he was trying to reload. 

In only one of the three cases, however, did interveners actually tackle the shooter while he may have been reloading a semiautomatic firearm.

 In one of the incidents, the weapon in question was a shotgun that had to be reloaded by inserting one shotshell at a time into the weapon (Knoxville News Sentinel “Takedown of Alleged Shooter Recounted” July 29, 2008, regarding a shooting in Knoxville, TN on July 27, 2008), and so the incident is irrelevant to the effects of detachable LCMs.


 In another incident, occurring in Springfield, Oregon on May 21, 1998, the shooter, Kip Kinkel, was using a semiautomatic gun, and he was tackled by bystanders, but not while he was reloading.

 After exhausting the ammunition in one gun, the shooter started 17 firing another loaded gun, one of three firearms he had with him.

 The first intervener was shot in the hand in the course of wresting this still-loaded gun away from the shooter (The (Portland) Oregonian, May 23, 1998). 


The final case occurred in Tucson, AZ on January 8, 2011. 

This is the shooting in which Jared Loughner attempted to assassinate Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

 The shooter was using a semiautomatic firearm and was tackled by bystanders, purportedly while trying to reload a detachable magazine. 

Even in this case, however, there were important uncertainties. 

According to one news account, one bystander “grabbed a full magazine” that the shooter dropped, and two others helped subdue him (Associated Press, January 9, 2011). 

It is not, however, clear whether this bystander intervention was facilitated because

 (1) the shooter was reloading, or because 

(2) the shooter stopping firing when his gun or magazine failed to function properly. 

Eyewitness testimony, including that of the interveners, was inconsistent as to exactly why or how the intervention transpired in Giffords shooting.

 One intervener insisted that he was sure the shooter had exhausted the ammunition in the first magazine (and thus was about to reload) because he saw the gun’s slide locked back – a condition he believed could only occur with this particular firearm after the last round is fired. 

In fact, this can also happen when the guns jams, i.e. fails to chamber the next round (Salzgeber 2014; Morrill 2014).

 Complicating matters further, the New York Times reported that the spring on the second magazine was broken, presumably rendering it incapable of functioning. 

Their story’s headline and text characterized this mechanical failure as “perhaps the only fortunate event of the day” (New York Times “A Single, Terrifying Moment: Shots, Scuffle, Some Luck,” January 10, 2011, p. A1)

. If the New York Times account was accurate, the shooter would not have been able to continue shooting with that magazine even if no one had stopped him from loading it into his gun. 

Detachable magazines of any size can malfunction, which would at least temporarily stop a prospective mass shooter from firing, and thereby provide an opportunity for bystanders to stop the shooter. 
It is possible that the bystander intervention in the Tucson case could have occurred regardless of what size magazines the shooter possessed, since a shooter struggling with a defective small-capacity magazine would be just as vulnerable to disruption as one struggling with a defective large-capacity magazine. Thus, it remains unclear whether the shooter was reloading when the bystanders tackled him.
-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds. 

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents. 

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines. 

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents. 

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children. 

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded. 

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

 If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

 On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading. 

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----


http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926

*In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading. *

*Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.*


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

andaronjim said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Actually a couple of pistols or a shotgun would have likely taken down even more students, and that is what this is all leading too.  If a murderer can't get one tool, they'll just seek out a different tool. It's what murderers do.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



You do seem to want to make them more effective however.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

andaronjim said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


Yeah you are pointing to Marxist radical doctrine. Should I post a link to a white supremasist Nationalist doctrine and have you explain it? How about we stop dwelling on the wingnuts and start dealing with reality. You don’t seem capable


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

andaronjim said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Are you talking about Christian religion or lessons on morality?


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




You focus on rare public shootings and call for bans on millions of items law abiding people use without harming anyone, and you accuse someone else of not dealing with reality?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I think citizens should have tools to defend themselves and I think limiting the firepower of the tools we sell that end up being used to kill people is also a smart move. Yes people will always be murdered, nothing is going to STOP it but the damage could be LIMITED.

If somebody wanted to inflict max damage then a machine gun would be the weapon of choice. Instead we haven’t seen them being used. Why is that?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

Stormy Daniels said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Can’t, my printer has been busy for the past week working on replicas of Stormy's boobs


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




Mass shootings with rifles are more rare than lawn mower deaths.....  knives are used to murder more people every single year than 35 years of rifles used by mass shooters....

You are irrational and a fool.......


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


New York Prison Tailor Charged With Helping Convicted Killers Escape


> Felons Richard Matt and David Sweat were discovered missing during an early morning bed check at Clinton Correctional Facility in Dannemora.
> 
> While making their escape, the convicted killers slipped through holes and cut into a steel plate and a steam pipe, then got out through a manhole and onto the street.


 If these 2 were executed, then they wouldn't of escaped.  Why do you love people who commit murder, rape and child molest and want them to be able to get out of jail to hurt others again?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Gun free means no guns. You just said there was an armed guard, that’s not gun free


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

andaronjim said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


What’s my straw man?


----------



## miketx (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Unlike the rich elitist left wing commies protected by armed guards and behind walls, the middle class who dont have such luxuries, perfect example.
> ...


Arm the law abiding. Kill the criminals.


----------



## g5000 (Apr 6, 2018)

miketx said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...


Everyone who wants a gun has one.  That's kind of the problem!

Try again.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


That’s all fine and dandy thanks for the information, I’m sure you will be voting against any and all gun control measures. I’m curious though, do you support the regulations in place for machine guns or do you think they should be readily available for sale, no questions asked?


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



As pointed out before, what makes you think they will come up with less effective methods, when the tools that would be far more effective are not affected with these controls.

Makes no sense and only makes the killer and rapists jobs easier.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


19 year olds cant get a machine gun, just like I cant....Legally.... Are you really that stupid?  Don't have to answer that, we all ready know.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


How so?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


Straw man again....Crock Pots can kill more than a machine gun...


----------



## g5000 (Apr 6, 2018)

It's strange the NRA hates any measures which would keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

It's almost as if they care more about gun sales than the 11,000+ people murdered by guns each year.


----------



## miketx (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...


Ok, trying again. Millions of Americans are prevented from carrying a gun to defend themselves in liberal infested cities in Illinois, New York,Maryland, etc etc etc. So you LIE when you say everyone that wants a gun has one. It shocks me that a liberal would actually lie. Not.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



There is a reason......

Murderers don't really care what the tool is, they just use another


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

andaronjim said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


Do you think it’s a good thing or bad thing that 19 year olds can’t get machine guns? Simple question


----------



## g5000 (Apr 6, 2018)

andaronjim said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




I'm throwing a flag on your misuse of the the Straw Man accusation.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> It's strange the NRA hates any measures which would keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.
> 
> It's almost as if they care more about gun sales than the 11,000+ people murdered by guns each year.



Why do you want to give rapists more access to their victims?

Must be a reason for that, right?


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



Now that's a strawman


----------



## g5000 (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


And yet in advanced countries which have stricter gun control than we do, their homicide rate is considerably lower.

Try again.


----------



## g5000 (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


Nope. It's a simple question.

A straw man is a claim that you hold a belief which you actually don't.

Why don't you answer the question?


----------



## g5000 (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > It's strange the NRA hates any measures which would keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.
> ...


Now here we have an example of a straw man!


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Yet, in many of those countries the rates are increasing, but ours is actually falling.

Also, as pointed out before, if you controlled the rate in just a few of the major cities, you see us near the bottom.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


I just said that a 19 year old, and people like me cant get a machine gun....legally....Your question is a straw man argument.

Remember when Barack Obama and Eric Holder allowed guns to be put in the hands of Mexican drug cartels in order to cause maximum violence?


> As reported by the _New York Post_, the operation was a Department of Justice-run program that allowed thousands of rifles including .50-caliber rifles with a range of nearly two miles and powerful enough to take down a helicopter to be sold to the cartels, allegedly so they could be “tracked” back to the illegal drug-running operations.
> 
> However, the Post noted, “internal documents later revealed the real goal was to gin up a crisis requiring a crackdown on guns in America.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


We are talking about gun regulation are we not? How is that a straw man?


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



I don't think machine guns are legal.

Whats your point. deflection? of course it is.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



Because you can't control a gun that's unavailable.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Have you noticed how few have been used by murderers? Why, cus murderers murder and rapists rape. No machine gun, they just move to another tool.

Thanks for pointing that out


----------



## Crixus (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > Did you see this news report of another man wielding a machete and broke into 2 apartments?  They had no weapons and felt helpless as to what to do if he had attacked them with it.  Fortunately, he didn’t, but what if he had?  They were defenseless.
> ...




As long as that gun is a single shot .22 or something dumb.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

andaronjim said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


Hey dimwit, I didn’t ask if a 19 year old could get a machine gun, I asked if you supported th ban on them, I’m asking if you think 19 year olds should be able to go buy machine guns with no questions asked. DO YOU SUPPORT THAT OR NOT?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


Because fucking machine guns are regulated to the point you have to have a FFL license to purchase one, along with a very extensive background check with the FBI and ATF seeing WHY you want to purchase one.  Only idiots like you listen to the lickspittle, lapdog, liberal, lame stream media to get your dose of Socialist talking points.(and you call me a puppet).


----------



## g5000 (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Their homicide rates are well below ours.  Not even close.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



Do you think fairies should have their wings clipped so they can't fly?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I’m seeing where your boundaries are on gun control which is the exact subject being discussed. No strawman. Nobody seems able to answer a simple question


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



But rising WITH GUN CONTROL.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Machine guns are not illegal, they are just highly regulated


----------



## g5000 (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Not rising.  And not even close to our homicide rate.

Not even close.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



I've been asking a question that you, and others refuse to answer. I'll try again.

Why do you want to make the job of a rapist easier?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

andaronjim said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


And my question for the fifth time is if you support those regulations on machine guns


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


What does that have to do with gun regulations?


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



You obviously know more than they do:

Murder rate in England and Wales rises 11%


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Easy answer, I don’t


----------



## g5000 (Apr 6, 2018)

Everyone believes in "gun control" to one extent or another.  Possibly excepting Ted Nugent...

Very few people believe we should all have access to nukes or tanks or artillery.  Very few people believe we should all have unrestricted access to fully automatic machine guns.

Very few people believe a convicted murderer on parole should be allowed a gun.

Very few people believe a six year old should be allowed to buy a gun.

Everyone believes in gun control to one extent or another.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 6, 2018)

Theowl32 said:


> Unlike the rich elitist left wing commies protected by armed guards and behind walls, the middle class who dont have such luxuries, perfect example.
> 
> Gentleman breaking into the persons home with a machete with the intention of killing the man and his wife.
> 
> Fucking left wingers are losers. Esepcially the rich hypocritical white ones.


That has nothing to do with our Second Amendment; natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.

too bad we don't have a better defense for, "those who are simply and merely, full of fallacy".


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



We regulate the shit out of cars, seems someone used one to kill 6 kids last week.

You have a point?

Murderers murder, they give a crap out of laws and regulations, it's not within the nature of a killer to care.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...





> Do you think it’s a good thing or bad thing that 19 year olds can’t get machine guns?





> And my question for the fifth time is if you support those regulations on machine guns


 I just spit my coffee on my computer screen, be back in a few minutes.


----------



## g5000 (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


An 11 percent rise from a very low rate is not much at all.

They still have *less than one fifth the homicide rate the US does*.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Everyone believes in "gun control" to one extent or another.  Possibly excepting Ted Nugent...
> 
> Very few people believe we should all have access to nukes or tanks or artillery.  Very few people believe we should all have unrestricted access to fully automatic machine guns.
> 
> ...



"Allowed to buy"

You don't exhibit much of a thought process. Criminals really don't care if they are "allowed"


----------



## g5000 (Apr 6, 2018)

andaronjim said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


You seem terrified to answer his simple question.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



I proved you wrong, and you do this?

Wow


----------



## g5000 (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone believes in "gun control" to one extent or another.  Possibly excepting Ted Nugent...
> ...


And yet stricter gun control results in lower homicide rates.

You are making shit up in your denial of this reality.  That is telling.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



You need to explain Chicago. Why do you want to make a rapists job easier?


----------



## g5000 (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No, you proved nothing.  You have not proved the UK has a homicide rate equal to ours.

It's not even close.

You are dancing and prancing all about in an attempt to divert from this fact.

Wow.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



You think a criminal can't get their hands on one? Too funny dude


----------



## g5000 (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Straw man.

Come back when you can debate without your idiotic fallacies.


----------



## g5000 (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


Another straw man.

We can make it harder for a criminal to get a gun.  That's the whole point.

It works in other countries like ours.  They have MUCH LOWER HOMICIDE RATES.

Keep reading that last sentence until it finally sinks in.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



Dance?

You said "not rising"

then

"an 11 percent rise from a very low rate is not much at all"

You are a piece of shit.


----------



## evenflow1969 (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> In Canada, you can own an AR-15 but AK-47s are banned outright.
> 
> Weird, right?
> 
> Your AR-15 can only be fired at a gun range, and you have to be licensed.


Not weird ever shot an AK. It will shoot right through a telephone pole and completely pwders a cinder block. Way more powerfull than an AR


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



Idiot, criminals don't obey laws. A law doesn't make it any harder for a CRIMINAL to commit CRIME


----------



## g5000 (Apr 6, 2018)

Homicide rate UK: 0.92 per 100,000

Homicide rate US: 4.88 per 100,000

The US homicide rate is 5.3 TIMES HIGHER than the UK.


----------



## g5000 (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


This is just a mental fantasy of yours which you are sticking to in total denial of reality.

If you make it harder for criminals to get a gun, you deter crime.  This simple fact is borne out by the FACT that the UK has less than one fifth the homicide rate we do.

So you can keep spewing your fantasy nonsense, or you can join the real world.  Up to you.


----------



## g5000 (Apr 6, 2018)

Deny reality, and win the mental battle in your own head, but lose the war in the real world.

Up to you, pops.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...


And they are 1/5 the size of the US and have only recently started importing 3rd world people into their society IT will go up even more.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...


No they don't, Australia instituted a complete ban as did Britain and the rates went UP not down dumb ass. More people in those Countries use firearms now to kill then BEFORE the ban.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...


Which since the ban IS GOING UP BY DOUBLE DIGITS EACH YEAR. MORE people use firearms in crimes now in Britain then before the ban dumb ass.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



So in your mind, a 5'2 90 lbs woman can fight off her 6'2" 240 lbs attacker with...........

good thoughts?

Why are there no women in the NBA or female linebackers in the NFL?

Look creep, we have area's in this country that have highly restrictive gun control. They are mostly murder capitals.

Get a life.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Homicide rate UK: 0.92 per 100,000
> 
> Homicide rate US: 4.88 per 100,000
> 
> The US homicide rate is 5.3 TIMES HIGHER than the UK.



AND GOING UP DUMBASS. You claimed they weren't. Doubling down on stupid?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


My daughter who is 5' 8" can fend off a 6'5" liberal thug, because she has been trained in the use of a weapon.  I told her to empty the magazine into the perp, then call police and explain her situation.  As a teacher, I am sure her students will be eye witnesses if the likes of Cruz shows up at her door.  And it isn't a machine gun she will be using either...


----------



## OKTexas (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > Did you see this news report of another man wielding a machete and broke into 2 apartments?  They had no weapons and felt helpless as to what to do if he had attacked them with it.  Fortunately, he didn’t, but what if he had?  They were defenseless.
> ...




Your right for self defense doesn't end at your front door.


.


----------



## Theowl32 (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


Machine guns are illegal moron, and it is a good thing. What the fuck is your fucking point?


----------



## OKTexas (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...




Considering guns are used defensively 1.5 million times a year, what makes you think gun ownership is not holding the numbers lower than they might otherwise be?


.


----------



## OKTexas (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> I would be able to obtain a gun in any advanced nation, even the ones with strict gun control.
> 
> I would not be able to buy any gun I wish, but nor am I able to do that here.  I would love to own a fully automatic Tommy gun.  I have always wanted one.




That's bullshit, you can own a fully automatic tommy gun, if you have a clean record and can afford it.


.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Apr 6, 2018)

OKTexas said:


> That's bullshit, you can own a fully automatic tommy gun, if you have a clean record *and can afford it.*


Key words there.  I think they go for around $100,000 now?  

Thanks to the Hughes Amendment, they are all antiques, in high demand, and VERY limited supply.  Someone could be manufacturing them new, for civilian use, increasing the supply to meet the very high, impossible demand and lowering the price to the budget of the average citizen.


----------



## OKTexas (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...




That's changing with their evolving culture, their homicide rates will continue to rise. Gotta love political correctness.


.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Cars are not a constitutional right so it’s a different discussion now isn’t it? How do you feel about machine guns being regulated? Do you support it or not?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


It is funny how none of these three can answer a simple question. Do you support machine gun regulations? “They are illegal” “criminals can get them” not answers to the question!!!!


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

OKTexas said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...


It can definately be limited if your right for self defense becomes a public safety issue. Hence the debate


----------



## OKTexas (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > London murder rate overtakes New York as knife crime rises
> ...




Knives ‘more dangerous’ at close range than guns | Toronto Star


.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

Theowl32 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


Did I ask if they were illegal? No, I didn’t.  Btw they arent illegal but that beside the point. I asked if you support them being regulated. Do you want to become the 4th on this thread that can answer a yes/no question?


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



Not giving a shit is not an answer?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

OKTexas said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...


Did you know that poison is more dangerous in food than guns?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


What’s no giving a shit? Are you trying to say that you don’t care if machine guns are regulated? Come on man, use your words


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



Wouldn't care if they had no restrictions.

What you fail to grasp is that NO LAW ABIDING CITIZEN would use them in the commission of a crime. And Criminals, they don't care if they are regulated or not.

You seem to worry about criminals far more than law abiding citizens.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


It’s about access. If crazy Carl wants to go shoot up a school and he can stop by the local Walmart to pick up a machine gun with unlimited ammo on his way to the school... is that something you think our system should allow? You don’t care?


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



And would likely be used more if guns were banned.

You actually proved a post I made several times earlier. If you remove a tool from a murderer, they will just find another tool, it's what they do. The horrible part of this is, you may just drive them to find a far more effective tool.

An unexpected backup is still appreciated

Thanks


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



School shootings have risen since fully autos have been regulated. Or didn't you get the memo?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...


So since they can’t easily get machine guns which far more effective tool have shooters found to use?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## OKTexas (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




Yep, 1.5 million defensive uses a year says it is a public safety issue, guns keep people safer than they otherwise would be.


.


----------



## OKTexas (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




So is bacteria, so your point would be?


.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



We all see the game you are playing fool......

You want to deflect from the argument. The argument being, why regulate the use of weapons when solutions to the problem are ignored.

You actually want a ban, then when I'm proven right, because the shooter will use a handgun, blame handguns. You will continue to ignore the base problem until more killings happen when the killer uses a shotgun.

BUT BUT, MACHINE GUNS!

Deflect all the fuck you want junior. Some of want to STOP what creates MONSTERS, not wait until we've CREATED THEM and cry about it.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


At this point, what difference does it make if the machine gun is regulated or not.  We the People cannot get them unless we have a legal means to purchase, or are criminal like Eric Holder and get them from the DOJ..


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



You don't know that.  Why are you pretending to know what was going through that wack job's mind

I don't know how many magazines he had but if had 30 round mags he may have brought less of them 

Most likely he bough x number of rounds and filled as many magazines as he could with the ammo he bought if that was 3 30 round mags or 9 10 round mags it makes no difference


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



There are far more variables than guns idiot


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




When the armed resource officer does not engage the shooter and he is the only one legally permitted to have a gun in the democrat gun free zone...it is a gun free zone.  You nuts can lie as much as you want, but one armed cop, on a campus of over 10 buildings and over 3,000 students where normal, law abiding gun owners are prohibited from carrying their legal guns is a gun free zone...


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...




No.....in democrat controlled cities they prevent law abiding people from owning and carrying guns and then let violent gun offenderss out of jail...over and over again....

And no....law abiding people who own and carry guns are not a problem......as we have seen over the last 20 years...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
--* gun murder down 49%*

*--gun crime down 75%*

*--violent crime down 72%*

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




I think those regulations should be repealed.  Citizens should have access to the same weapons as the infantry in our military....if you don't want the military to have select fire weapons,  that's fine....but if they have them, our servants, then we, their bosses, should have them.....we are not subjects, we are the ones who pay them......

And if criminals wanted fully automatic weapons they would get them already....they get them in France easily, and the drug cartels arm their people with them as well.....fully automatic weapons and/or select fire weapons are not used by American criminals.....it is a choice since they can get whatever they want.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> It's strange the NRA hates any measures which would keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.
> 
> It's almost as if they care more about gun sales than the 11,000+ people murdered by guns each year.




You are wrong.....it is the democrats who keep letting violent felons.....in prison on gun crimes, out of jail...while the NRA fights to keep them in jail....

It is the democrats who let the killers out...the killers who murdered those 11,000 people, not the NRA......

You guys have gotten away with letting violent criminals out of jail for a long time......one day people may wake up and realize it is you, and not law abiding gun owners, who are getting people murdered.

California Democrats hate the gun, not the gunman – Orange County Register

Now that Democrats have supermajorities in the California state Legislature, they’ve rolled into Sacramento with a zest for lowering the state’s prison population and have interpreted St. Augustine’s words of wisdom to mean, “Hate the gun, not the gunman.”

I say this because, once they finally took a break from preaching about the benefits of stricter gun control, the state Senate voted to loosen sentencing guidelines for criminals convicted of gun crimes.

Currently, California law requires anyone who uses a gun while committing a felony to have their sentence increased by 10 years or more in prison — on top of the normal criminal penalty. If enacted, Senate Bill 620 would eliminate that mandate.

*The bill, which passed on a 22-14 party-line vote, with support only from Democrats, now heads to the state Assembly for consideration. *

*Republicans and the National Rifle Association have vowed to campaign against it.*

Why have Democrats suddenly developed a soft spot for criminals convicted of gun crimes? The bill’s author, state Sen. Steve Bradford, D-Gardena, says that he was motivated to write the bill after a 17-year-old riding in a car involved in a drive-by shooting was sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though he claims that he wasn’t the one who pulled the trigger.

and for all those anti-gunners who want to know where criminals get guns....well...this law lowers the prison time for those who give guns to criminals.....

Why is that?

Prop. 57, for example, very deceptively and fundamentally changed the definition of what constitutes a “non-violent” offense.


*supplying a firearm to a gang member,*

l
*felon obtaining a firearm,*

*discharging a firearm on school grounds*


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




And that has nothing to do with their gun control laws...since their gun crime rates are going up.....their criminals do not cross the line and murder their victims.....that is changing.....


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...




And their gun control laws had nothing to do with it.....gun murder in Britain did not go down after they banned guns......in fact, it went up, then leveled off to where it was before they banned guns...so their gun control had no effect on murder....but their gun crime rates are now going up....our rates are going down.....dittos Australia, they still have public shootings, they have just had dumb luck in that they haven't managed to kill 3 or more people per incident.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...




Their homicide rates were lower than ours before they banned guns...and they didn't go down after they banned guns...showing their gun control laws have nothing to do with their homicide rates....


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...




No.....stricter gun control does not lead to lower homicide rates......in fact, we prove the exact opposite...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...

--* gun murder down 49%*

*--gun crime down 75%*

*--violent crime down 72%*

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Homicide rate UK: 0.92 per 100,000
> 
> Homicide rate US: 4.88 per 100,000
> 
> The US homicide rate is 5.3 TIMES HIGHER than the UK.




Yes....you focus on the homicide rate to hide the fact that their gun control laws don't work...their gun crime rates are going up...which is separate from the decisions their criminals make for taking a human life....

A comparison...

*Britain...banned guns....*

Yorkshire sees highest number of crimes for any county in Britain according to figures

“In particular we’re shocked to see an increase of nearly 30 per cent in weapon possession offences between 2016 and 2017.”

Crimes covered violent and sexual offences, vehicle theft, public order offences, possession of weapons, shoplifting, personal theft, drug crimes, robbery, criminal damage, bicycle thefts and anti-social behaviour.


========

Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade | Daily Mail Online

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent. 

The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent . 


========



Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show

Ministers will also be concerned that the country is becoming increasingly violent in nature, with gun crime rising 23% to 6,375 offences, largely driven by an increase in the use of handguns.

=========



Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News

Gun crime offences in London surged by 42% in the last year, according to official statistics.

Top trauma surgeon reveals shocking extent of London’s gun crime

A leading trauma surgeon has told how the number of patients treated for gunshot injuries at a major London hospital has doubled in the last five years. 

----

He said the hospital’s major trauma centre had seen a bigger rise in gunshot injuries compared to knife wounds and that the average age of victims was getting younger. 

-----

Last year, gun crime offences in London increased for a third year running and by 42 per cent, from 1,793 offences in 2015/16 to 2,544 offences in 2016/17. Police have seized 635 guns off the streets so far this year.

Dr Griffiths, who also teaches medical students, said: “Our numbers of victims of gun injury have doubled [since 2012]. Gunshot injuries represent about 2.5 per cent of our penetrating trauma. 

-----

Dr Griffiths said the average age of gun crime victims needing treatment at the hospital had decreased from 25 to the mid to late teens since 2012. 

He added that medics at the Barts Health hospital’s major trauma centre in Whitechapel had seen a bigger rise in patients with gun injuries rather than knife wounds and that most were caused by pistols or shotguns. 

Met Police commander Jim Stokley, who was also invited to speak at the meeting, said that handguns and shotguns were the weapons of choice and that 46 per cent of London’s gun crime discharges were gang-related.

He said: “We believe that a lot of it is associated with the drugs trade, and by that I mean people dealing drugs at street level and disagreements between different gangs.”

Violent crime on the rise in every corner of the country, figures suggest

But analysis of the figures force by force, showed the full extent of the problem, with only one constabulary, Nottinghamshire, recording a reduction in violent offences.

The vast majority of police forces actually witnessed double digit rises in violent crime, with Northumbria posting a 95 per cent increase year on year.

Of the other forces, Durham Police recorded a 73 per cent rise; West Yorkshire was up 48 per cent; Avon and Somerset 45 per cent; Dorset 39 per cent and Warwickshire 37 per cent.

Elsewhere Humberside, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Wiltshire and Dyfed Powys all saw violence rise by more than a quarter year on year.


*The U.S., 600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense.......*

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...




You have no idea what you are talking about.....reality shows you are wrong...

Does Gun Control Reduce Murder? Let’s Run The Numbers Globally



Let’s look at the countries with the highest concentrations of gun ownership (excluding Yemen and Iraq as active war zones). Guns per murder in those countries are,


United States at 20,967,
Uruguay at 3,777,
Norway at 55,893,
France at 19,747,
Austria at 59,608,
Germany at 35,647,
Switzerland at 35,435,
New Zealand at 24,835, and
Greece at 26,471.
*Norway is a particularly interesting example. It has 10 times the gun ownership rate of the United Kingdom, but only half the murder rate.*

When one excludes Iraq and Yemen, not one of the countries on the list of the 10 highest rates of gun ownership also appears on the list of the top ten highest murder rates. In fact, the countries with the highest murder rates have markedly low gun ownership rates.


El Savador (108.64 murders per 100,000/5800 guns per 100,000)
Honduras (63.75/6200)
Venezuela (57.15/10,700)
Jamaica (43.21/8,100)
Lesotho (38/2,700)
Belize (34.4/10,000)
South Africa (34.27/12,700)
Guatemala (31.21/13,100)
Trinidad (30.88/1,600)
Bahamas (29.81/5,300)
*It really doesn’t matter how you slice this data. The conclusion is inescapable: High concentrations of private, legal gun ownership do not correlate positively to increased murders.*


 Indeed, you can look at almost any slice of data and conclude the opposite: Higher private ownership of guns can be strongly correlated to lower murder rates.

The data also exposes some myths I have heard about gun control. For example, I’ve heard activists tout Australia, which supposedly banned all guns. Australia has advanced a number of gun control measures over the years. Nevertheless, according to the data, Australia has a rate of private ownership of guns of 13,100 per 100,000 and a murder rate of .98.

*Australia has almost twice as many guns per capita as the United Kingdom, for example, and a comparable murder rate. New Zealand has almost twice as many guns per capita as Australia but a lower crime rate.*

Countries with both a low rate of private gun ownership and a low murder rate exist, but they are clearly data outliers. These include the Netherlands (3,900 guns per 100,000, for a murder rate of .61) the United Kingdom (6,200 guns per 100,000, for a murder rate of .92), Japan, and Portugal. Places like Norway, Austria, Switzerland, and Germany overwhelm those examples because they all have high rates of gun ownership and enviable crime rates.

-------

The ratio of murders per gun works as a decent measure for how responsible a country’s citizens are with their firearms. Measured in this light, an owner of a private legal gun in America measures as one of the most responsible in the world. A gun in America is 387 times less likely to be used in a murder than in El Salvador. Even in Japan, which has one of the lowest murder and gun ownership rates in the world, there are ten times as many murders per gun than in America.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




If crazy carl knows the school is no longer a democrat gun free zone, he isn't going to attack the school...how do we know....we know because crazy carl, when we take him alive or crazy carl wrote in his notes before he committed suicide told us so.....they pick gun free zones for their targets and it won't matter what weapon they have....they won't target a place where good people can fight back...


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




A rental truck.....a rental truck used by a muslim in Nice, France murdered 86 people...more people in one go than each of our mass shooters with rifles or pistols......


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

OKTexas said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...


You might feel that way others feel differently. That’s why different states and different counties create different laws.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

OKTexas said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...


I was mocking your knife article


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


How can I be deflecting from a conversation about regulating weapons by asking you if you support the regulations that we have already put on weapons. Do you realize how dumb you sound? My questing goes directly to the heart of the topic and the only answer you’ve given is “I don’t care”


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

andaronjim said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


It matters because it goes to the principle behind the law and our governments right to regulate weapons. Why can’t you just answer a simple question?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


It makes a huge difference. It means carrying the 9 magazines in a backpack versus the 3 in his pockets. It means reloading 9 times instead of three, it means purchasing 9 magazines instead of three.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


There’s a guy with a gun on campus paid to protect the school, it isn’t gun free, this isn’t a hard concept. Complain that he didn’t do his job or one guy isn’t enough but don’t lie and call it a gun free zone and then claim I’m lying.


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 6, 2018)

andaronjim said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Unlike the rich elitist left wing commies protected by armed guards and behind walls, the middle class who dont have such luxuries, perfect example.
> ...


357 Mag is the perfect round for self defense.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Are we the citizens permitted to have these weapons, no questions asked, or is a well regulated militia permitted? something like a police force?


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > Did you see this news report of another man wielding a machete and broke into 2 apartments?  They had no weapons and felt helpless as to what to do if he had attacked them with it.  Fortunately, he didn’t, but what if he had?  They were defenseless.
> ...


Your comrades are saying it.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


So why did the parkland shoot choose a school that had an armed security guard? Why did the Ft hood shooter who killed 13 and injured 30 decide to shoot up a Texas military base?! How do these fit your narrative? They dont


----------



## depotoo (Apr 6, 2018)

Parkland:  He probably knew he would do just as he did, nothing.  He had dealt with him before.

Fort Hood:  Because he knew they were not allowed to be armed.





Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > Did you see this news report of another man wielding a machete and broke into 2 apartments?  They had no weapons and felt helpless as to what to do if he had attacked them with it.  Fortunately, he didn’t, but what if he had?  They were defenseless.
> ...


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > Did you see this news report of another man wielding a machete and broke into 2 apartments?  They had no weapons and felt helpless as to what to do if he had attacked them with it.  Fortunately, he didn’t, but what if he had?  They were defenseless.
> ...


----------



## Theowl32 (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


You are so FUCKING IGNORANT!


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


And guess what... vehicles are highly regulated, we need to be of age, licensed, and insured to drive. the actual vehicles have safety standards to be sold and drivers need to abide by a sea of traffic laws to use them on our roads.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...


They aren’t my comrades


----------



## depotoo (Apr 6, 2018)

I don’t think there are 20,000 of them..
But most importantly there is no amendment regarding driving as a right..





Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

depotoo said:


> Parkland:  He probably knew he would do just as he did, nothing.  He had dealt with him before.
> 
> Fort Hood:  Because he knew they were not allowed to be armed.
> 
> ...


“He probably knew?” That’s your answer? Nice one


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

Theowl32 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Says the guy who can’t complete an intelligent arguement. If all you got is empty petty insults then you really got nothing. You are a joke


----------



## depotoo (Apr 6, 2018)

He had dealt with the security guard before.  Knowing someone can give us a reasonable idea of who they are...





Slade3200 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > Parkland:  He probably knew he would do just as he did, nothing.  He had dealt with him before.
> ...


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

depotoo said:


> I don’t think there are 20,000 of them..
> But most importantly there is no amendment regarding driving as a right..
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah I saw that rebuttal coming. He brought up the truck, not I.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


You realize that you can not carry 3 30 round magazines in your pockets right? Retard?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


Actually millions drive unlicensed and with out even registering their cars, DUMB ASS.


----------



## OKTexas (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




Thank God the guy in the video wasn't that ignorant.


.


----------



## OKTexas (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




Police forces aren't even mentioned in the Constitution, and no where does it refer to "the People" as anything but the individual citizen.


.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

depotoo said:


> He had dealt with the security guard before.  Knowing someone can give us a reasonable idea of who they are...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The guard said he was away locking doors in another building LIKE HE ALWAYS DID. notice the timing here. 

It was no secret


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



And yet, with all that being true they are still used as murder weapons by those who don’t give a shit about the law. 

What’s your argument again?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Are 3 30 round magazines easier to carry than 9 10 round magazines? Yes, so please STFU


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


And they are breaking the law and get busted if they get caught. What’s up with you tonight? Hit the sauce a little too hard?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

OKTexas said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


What’s your definition of a well regulated militia ?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 6, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


My arguement is that taking guns that are capable of mass destruction off the market, like machine guns, and making safer guns available saves lives. Just like, having safer cars by adding airbags and seatbelts and having regulations like drivers training, licenses, speed limits etc saves lives.

And you still haven’t answered my question. Do you agree with regulations on machine guns? Yes or no


----------



## OKTexas (Apr 6, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




I define it as irrelevant to the right of "the People to keep and bear arms, just like the supreme court did.


.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


You can NOT put them in your pockets. So finding something to carry 3 or 9 is the same thing retard.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



You don't seem to understand how fast a magazine can be changed.  And it's easy when no one is shooting back.  And magazines are pretty cheap

How many shots did he get off before his rifle jammed?  Had had to change magazines at least once maybe more it's not really the issue you seem to think it is


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 7, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...



I really like a 10mm


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



Depends on how you carry them.

It's not hard to figure out.

I don't know how many times you need to be told that magazine size is not the defining variable as to how many shots you can get off


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



You got a list of school shootings using machine guns prior to their regulation then?

Let’s see them?

Cars, although highly regulated are used by criminals to murder. 

And your explanation? Criminals don’t care?

Sweet.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


Wellness of Regulation for the Militia of the United States, must be _prescribed_ by our federal Congress.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

OKTexas said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...


How do you define the “well regulated” part


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I don’t have a list and don’t believe there have been any. Has nothing to do with my point. You’re running to the straw man again instead of answering my question.

Yes, criminals don’t care, but criminals are also limited by the tools they have access to, are they not?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


I don’t know what point you are trying to make but it’s not landing. Common sense tells us that high capacity magazines, and weapons with high rates of fire contain more damage potential. It’s a simple point


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


If somebody goes into a store and buys a gun with two extra magazines they can have 30 shots or 90 shots. Simple point. If they want 90 shots then yes they can buy 9 magazines so you think that makes it a non factor, I disagree.


----------



## OKTexas (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




Can you not read, it's irrelevant to the discussion of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Everything after the comma in the 2nd can stand alone. It's a right of the people, not the government, not the State and not any militia. The founders said the people can't be disarmed and the supreme court agreed. Deal with it.


.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



A semiautomatic has a rate of fire of one round per trigger pull.  It matters not if that semiautomatic is a rifle or a handgun.  It matters not if that semiautomatic has pistol grips or barrel shrouds.  It matters not if that semiautomatic has a plastic or a wooden stock.

Is one round per trigger pull a "high rate of fire"?  It's the same rate of fire as a revolver or a lever action rifle or a shot gun for that matter

And I posted a very good video that basically proves that larger capacity magazines do not equate to more shots being fired


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

OKTexas said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...


I agree. The people have a right to bare arms. Now can you answer my question on what “well regulated” means?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



 It's not a factor because a person will buy as many as he thinks he needs or as many as he wants

I happen to have 5 10 round magazines for my carry pistol so what?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



It means ordered or disciplined which does not necessarily mean government controlled,

And that applies to the militia the right to keep and bear arms is clearly stated as belonging to the people.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Machine guns have much higher rates of fire and you still haven’t answered whether you support the regulations in automatic weapons. 

High capacity magazines are definately a grey area and a good subject for debate.


----------



## OKTexas (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




I chose not to because it's nothing but a deflection from the topic at hand. You can deal with that too. BTW the people have a right to KEEP and bear arms, not just bear arms at the whim of the government.


.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




You never asked me about fully automatic weapons.

FYI they are not illegal.

And "high capacity" is just another catch phrase

For decades 20 and 30 round magazines were standard sizes.  My Ruger came with a 20 round magazine when i bought it

And I posted a very good video that explains why magazine size isn't really a factor


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


So some people would buy that because they want to carry 50 shots and some will buy that because they want 5 magazines for their gun. 

In my opinion somebody walking around with 5 30 round magazines shooting a crowd is more dangerous than somebody somebody walking around with 5 10 round magazines. Somebody walking around with 5 30 round magazines is more dangerous than 15 10 round magazines. They either have to carry the magazines in a vest or a backpack and have to go through the process of retrieving the magazine and reloading, which creates opportunity to disarm or escape.

It has an effect whether you like to admit it or not. The debate is whether that effect is enough to make a law regulating the high cap mags.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...


How is order and discipline measured and enforced?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

OKTexas said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...


I already agreed that the people have the right to bare arms, if you don’t want to further engage in understanding our laws when it comes to the second amendment then that’s your call but it is a rather lazy move


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



It really doesn't because if I wanted to carry 150 round I could just as easily carry 15 10 round magazines or 10 15 round magazines

And the fact that 1% of all murders occur in the scenarios you are fixated on adds to the fact that magazine size isn't really a factor


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


I’ve posted at least 10 times asking whether y’all support the regulations of machine guns. I know they aren’t illegal, but do you think it a good thing that they are so highly regulated?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



By anyone.

You don't need a government bureaucrat to be discplined


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


They aren't really that highly regulated.

All you need is a permit that any law abiding person can get and to pay the tax involved.

Fully automatic weapons are however extremely expensive

Who Can Own a Full-Auto Machine Gun? – RocketFFL


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


You’re right, you could... if I was hiding under a table while some nutjob was walking around shooting up the joint I’d much rather he had the 15 10 round mags instead of the 5 30 round mags, wouldn’t you? id be looking very closely during each reload when the guys gotta go to the bag to get another mag, to try and take him out. But hey if you don’t see a difference then there’s nothin I can say to convince you otherwise.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



Funny how that never happens during a mass shooting isn't it?

And in all honesty I don't worry abut getting killed in a mass shooting as the odds are pretty thin


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


I never said anything about government bureaucrats, I just asked a question... when the constitution says a well regulated militia you’re saying that the founders meant to say that people should be ordered and disciplined and held accountable by just anyone who feels like holding them accountable? That’s how you think it’s intended?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Just like the rest of the dupes, another dodge. Why can’t any of you answer a simple yes or no question? You are the 5th person who has dodged answering. P@triot is the one person with the balls enough to answer so far


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



The second says nothing about accountability.

If a group of people were to form a militia they could decide who their leader would be.  
But you ignore the fact that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people whether they are serving in a militia or not.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Yeah you’re right, fuck it. Those students who want safer schools are drama queens anyways, let’s not do shit.


----------



## OKTexas (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




Yet you can't seem to find the courage to include the word "keep", meaning to possess, you're being disingenuous. Also I understand our gun laws and how they infringe on the rights of the people. To anyone who says they want to further infringe on the peoples rights, I say go to hell, no more yielding, no more compromise.


.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



My honest answer is I don't give a fuck about the regulation of machine guns because I never wanted one.

But they really are not that highly regulated as you say they are.

And what's point you're trying to make with that question?

That you have to be 21?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



There are a lot better ways to secure schools than telling law abiding people they can't own certain guns.

Gee I don't know maybe we start by controlling who can walk onto the school grounds or into the school buildings

DUH


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


I’m not ignoring that. I’ve actually written those exact words serveral times. The people have a right to own firearms. 

So back to the discussion. If there was an unregulated militia that showed lack of order and discipline, what do you think should happen?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



Hypothetical bull shit.

If those people were not breaking any laws there need be nothing done.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

OKTexas said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...


You sound like a tough guy. Way to stay strong on principle. 

Yes it says keep and bear arms. It also gives our congress the responsibility to protect the people, so if something causes a public safety hazard, like a crazy guy with a machine gun, or a prankster yelling bomb on a crowded airplane, our lawmakers have the right to outlaw it and enforce those laws, do they not?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Pop23 was the only other one that tried to answer that question and he said the same as you “I don’t care”. What a cop out.

My point is that machine guns are regulated the way they are because they are extremely dangerous and capable of killing many people in a short period of time. To me it is a no brainer that we don’t have them for sale in every 7-11 or quick stop for anybody to walk in and buy. Do you agree? YES or NO


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Why would we worry about that? The odds are pretty thin that there would be a mass shooter anyways


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Yes you look at hypothetical situations to understand the definitions of our laws. If this happens how is it handled. You keep dodging instead of answering. Why?


----------



## OKTexas (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




The greater public safety hazard would be telling the 1.5 million people who use guns defensively every year that they can no longer defend themselves with equal or greater firepower than the bad guy has. And I don't know of anyone who died as a result of a prankster yelling bomb on an airplane.

The left keeps trying to chip away at our rights, this time magazines and a style of weapon, they get that, they'll just move on to the next one and then next one and the next one. No more yielding, no more compromise.


.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


We don't need too it is irrelevant to the right to own firearms.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


The Supreme Court already ruled that the PEOPLE have a right to arms NOT associated with MILITIA'S in any way do try and keep up.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

OKTexas said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...


Progressives will always push for more and conservatives will always push for less, this is why a healthy balance between both is important. If only would could have productive and honest debate instead of overbloated and hateful rhetoric.

There can be a balance between responsible gun ownership and public safety. But gun people need to recognize that smart regulations do help and gun grabbers need to recognize our second amendment right to bear arms and understand the protection element of it.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...


Nobody needs to do anything but we are trying to have a productive conversation so when you run and hide from answering simple questions it just makes you sound uninformed.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


I’ve state that about 5 times now. This is 6, the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Try and keep up


----------



## OKTexas (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




That's crap, the left has never engaged in honest debate. They intentionally inflate numbers and outright lie. The only way to defeat their tactics is to fight fire with fire. They're not the only ones who can read rules for radicals and effectively use its tactics.

The left would be better served in pushing States to input data in NICS so it can better detect nut jobs like Cruz. Congress just passed the Fix NICS bill to incentivize States to do just that. BTW, the NRA has been pushing for that bill for 25 years.


.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

OKTexas said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...


I guess that makes you no better than them if you’re gonna fight fire with fire, also making your complaints about them hypocritical.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




Scalia defined it in the D.C v. Heller decision....he did it in great detail....

From Heller....p.22


2. Prefatory Clause. 

The prefatory clause reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . .” a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster (“The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades . . . and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations”); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) (“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms”). Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §.....

Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise . . . Armies”; “to provide . . . a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all ablebodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them. 

*Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.* See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people,


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




No...they don't....you have been shown the research into magazine capacity and you don't care....you want to ban these things because you have an irrational fear of them....

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary  Kleck :: SSRN

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings? 
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading. 
*LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings. *
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
 There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload. 
*In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change. *
*Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.*

*--------*

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

 LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

 Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


 For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1). 

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

 Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011. 

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

 Specifically, we searched for 

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession, 

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine, 

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident, 

(4) the types of guns possessed, 

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident, 

(6) the number of rounds fired,

 (7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter. 

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

 We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


 Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper. 

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013. 

-----

How Often Have Bystanders Intervened While a Mass Shooter Was Trying to Reload?

 First, we consider the issue of how many times people have disrupted a mass shooting while the shooter was trying to load a detachable magazine into a semiautomatic gun.

 Note that 16 it is irrelevant whether interveners have stopped a shooter while trying to reload some other type of gun, using other kinds of magazines, since we are addressing the potential significance of restrictions on the capacity of detachable magazines which are used only with semiautomatic firearms. 

Thus, bystander intervention directed at shooters using other types of guns that take much longer to reload than a semiautomatic gun using detachable magazines could not provide any guidance as to the likelihood of bystander intervention when the shooter was using a semiautomatic gun equipped with detachable magazines that can be reloaded very quickly.

 Prospective interveners would presumably be more likely to tackle a shooter who took a long time to reload than one who took only 2-4 seconds to do so. 

Likewise, bystander interventions that occurred at a time when the shooter was not reloading (e.g., when he was struggling with a defective gun or magazine) are irrelevant, since that kind of intervention could occur regardless of what kinds of magazines or firearms the shooter was using. 


It is the need to reload detachable magazines sooner and more often that differentiates shooters using smaller detachable magazines from those using larger ones. 

For the period 1994-2013 inclusive, we identified three mass shooting incidents in which it was claimed that interveners disrupted the shooting by tackling the shooter while he was trying to reload. 

In only one of the three cases, however, did interveners actually tackle the shooter while he may have been reloading a semiautomatic firearm.

 In one of the incidents, the weapon in question was a shotgun that had to be reloaded by inserting one shotshell at a time into the weapon (Knoxville News Sentinel “Takedown of Alleged Shooter Recounted” July 29, 2008, regarding a shooting in Knoxville, TN on July 27, 2008), and so the incident is irrelevant to the effects of detachable LCMs.


 In another incident, occurring in Springfield, Oregon on May 21, 1998, the shooter, Kip Kinkel, was using a semiautomatic gun, and he was tackled by bystanders, but not while he was reloading.

 After exhausting the ammunition in one gun, the shooter started 17 firing another loaded gun, one of three firearms he had with him.

 The first intervener was shot in the hand in the course of wresting this still-loaded gun away from the shooter (The (Portland) Oregonian, May 23, 1998). 


The final case occurred in Tucson, AZ on January 8, 2011. 

This is the shooting in which Jared Loughner attempted to assassinate Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

 The shooter was using a semiautomatic firearm and was tackled by bystanders, purportedly while trying to reload a detachable magazine. 

Even in this case, however, there were important uncertainties. 

According to one news account, one bystander “grabbed a full magazine” that the shooter dropped, and two others helped subdue him (Associated Press, January 9, 2011). 

It is not, however, clear whether this bystander intervention was facilitated because

 (1) the shooter was reloading, or because 

(2) the shooter stopping firing when his gun or magazine failed to function properly. 

Eyewitness testimony, including that of the interveners, was inconsistent as to exactly why or how the intervention transpired in Giffords shooting.

 One intervener insisted that he was sure the shooter had exhausted the ammunition in the first magazine (and thus was about to reload) because he saw the gun’s slide locked back – a condition he believed could only occur with this particular firearm after the last round is fired. 

In fact, this can also happen when the guns jams, i.e. fails to chamber the next round (Salzgeber 2014; Morrill 2014).

 Complicating matters further, the New York Times reported that the spring on the second magazine was broken, presumably rendering it incapable of functioning. 

Their story’s headline and text characterized this mechanical failure as “perhaps the only fortunate event of the day” (New York Times “A Single, Terrifying Moment: Shots, Scuffle, Some Luck,” January 10, 2011, p. A1)

. If the New York Times account was accurate, the shooter would not have been able to continue shooting with that magazine even if no one had stopped him from loading it into his gun. 

Detachable magazines of any size can malfunction, which would at least temporarily stop a prospective mass shooter from firing, and thereby provide an opportunity for bystanders to stop the shooter. 
It is possible that the bystander intervention in the Tucson case could have occurred regardless of what size magazines the shooter possessed, since a shooter struggling with a defective small-capacity magazine would be just as vulnerable to disruption as one struggling with a defective large-capacity magazine. Thus, it remains unclear whether the shooter was reloading when the bystanders tackled him.
-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds. 

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents. 

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines. 

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents. 

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children. 

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded. 

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

 If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

 On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading. 

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----


http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926

*In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading. *

*Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.*


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




Actual research shows you are wrong...

https://www.utdallas.edu/~tvk071000/Banning Large Capacity Magazines Will Not Reduce Crime.pdf

Even in these rare events, however, LCM’s are irrelevant to the number of victims shot. For example, in the decade before the expired AW ban, in the entire U.S. there were 15 mass shooting incidents in which more than 6 victims were killed or more than 12 were killed or wounded. Of the 15 cases, in 14 of them either the shooter possessed multiple guns, which made it unnecessary for him to reload once one gun was empty, or the shooter in fact reloaded. Recent history also casts doubt on whether a ban on LCM’s would alter the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings. While one of the Columbine shooters used a 995 Hi-Point carbine rifle with a 10-round limit on magazine capacity (during the AW ban), he simply brought additional magazines to the attack—13 to be exact. The Virginia Tech shooter had 17 magazines for his handguns and most were of the 10- round variety. The Newtown shooter brought three guns to the school and fired at least two of them. Simply put, these killers do not need LCM’s to fire many rounds without reloading – they simply bring plenty of magazines with them or drop one gun when its ammunition is exhausted and start firing another. Further, there are virtually no mass killings in which there is a bystander or victim willing to...

---------

*But there are potential costs to restricting magazine capacity as well as possible benefits. Any restrictions that limit the number of rounds available for criminal purposes also limit the number rounds available to law-abiding persons for self-protection. Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey reveal that roughly 20 percent of all violent crime victims in a given year will be attacked by two or more offenders. One can easily imagine a scenario in which an armed victim facing multiple attackers is able to save their own life by having enough rounds to thwart multiple attackers. And there is strong empirical evidence showing that the use of guns for self-protection is both frequent and effective. *


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...


So what is your understanding here. A well regulated militia is congressionally organized of 18-45 year old able bodied white males? Is that were we at?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


That’s funny, so you are trying to prove that LCMs don’t increase the killing power of criminals in mass shootings and then your next paragraph you are making a case that restricting LCMs weakens law abiding citizens abilities to defend themselves. You do see the irony here don’t you?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


USMB rules are to not copy and paste long articles or text strings. Post a link or write summaries in your own words to make concise points.


----------



## OKTexas (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




Screw you, we lose ground when we try to play nice, that has ended. Commiecrats want to use children as human parrots and expect the rest of us to lay down, it ain't gonna happen. 


.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

OKTexas said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...


Like I said, as soon as you resort to dirty and dishonest tactics then you become no better than those who you critique. And then you are nothing more than a lying hypocritical talking head.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



And never used in a mass killing when they were legal. But perhaps this is the reason those mass shootings are happening during the past 20 years?

People who take antidepressants are '50% more likely to be convicted of assault' | Daily Mail Online

Imagine. 11% if the population taking a prescription drug that makes you 50% More likely to commit violent crimes.

Hmmmmm, maybe it’s not the guns?


----------



## OKTexas (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




Who said anything about me being dishonest, dirty is definitely an option. Feel free to point to anything I've said that wasn't factual.


.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Mental health is absolutely a factor. You’re still not answering my question


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

OKTexas said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...


Gee, let’s see, how about I just go back one post... “commiecrats want to use children as human parrots and expect the rest of us to lay down.” Come on, grow up


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



I have no problem with anyone who can legally own a firearm owning an automatic weapon.  None at all.  I do not think any extra licensing or taxes should apply.

The same as I don't think an additional permit for concealed carry is necessary.  If I can legally buy a handgun I have every right to carry that gun if I so choose.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



The last thing I would be thinking about if a guy was shooting at me was if he had a 10 or 30 round magazine

Unlike you I know that magazine size matter very little in terms of how many rounds can be fired in a given time frame.

I posted a very informative video on the topic.  You should watch it


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



True enough.

You asked how to stop school shootings.  I gave you the most effective way


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Ok, thank you for finally answering, you almost addressed the question but not quite. So we know you don’t want any additional regulations but how do you feel about the current ones that are in place?

There are laws and regulations right now that determine what is “legal” and who is “permitted” to own weapons... do you think those laws and regulations are justified?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



There is no need for the additional permits or the taxes.


I have ever had a problem with denying convicted felons or the adjudicated mentally ill a firearm.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


I did and I didn’t find it relevant. Btw. You don’t need to think about how many bullets a shooter has, I never implied so. I’m simply saying somebody with LCM is more dangerous than somebody who will need to carry and reload more, which is also more dangerous than somebody with a revolver or musket


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Fact is nobody can stop school shootings, despite what Trump touts. If there is a will there is a way. However, there is a problem and kids are rallying together to demand more safety in our schools. You can point to stats and take the weak and lazy stance of saying we don’t need to do anything cause you’re not worried about it... or we can work on things that will make our communities safer.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Why can’t you answer a direct question. You know I’m going to just keep asking until you actually give an answer. So here it is AGAIN. How do you feel about the current laws that are in place that regulate who and what people can buy? This is including the regulations on machine guns. Do you support the CURRENT LAWS? Yes or no


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



When a reload involves dropping and swapping a mag the time is negligible


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



Gee I could have sworn I told you that IMO anyone who can legally buy any firearm should be able to buy an automatic weapon with no additional permits or taxes.

I assumed anyone could imply from that that I disagree with the mandate for an additional permit and the additional tax.

As far as what people can buy I refer you to the above.

If anyone can legally purchase a firearm I don't care what firearms they own


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



I actually have been saying over and over again in various threads that the best way to prevent school shootings is to control who is allowed on school grounds


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


That’s fine, I just disagree. I think that easy to show from a gun expert at a range and a very different situation when in a hostile situation, with adrenaline flowing, after murdering people. Hands might just be a little more shaky, mind might just be a bit more overwhelmed, don’t you think?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Wow, are you really not understanding my question or are you just trying so hard to dance around it. It’s been over a day and I still cant get a straight forward answer from you. What’s the deal man, how embarrassing for you. Here I’ll ask it a THIRD time and restate that I’m not talking about future laws or regulations I’m talking about EXISTING ones.

Do you agree with current regulations and laws we have on guns and those who are permitted to buy them? Yes or no. I really can’t be any more simple or clear.

You’ve said in your dodge, that you think anybody who can legally purchase firearms should be able to purchase any kind of gun. But laws define who is considered “legal” so are you ok with those laws?


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



No, it actually isn’t.

People with depression rarely, if ever act out violently

But those on these drugs, whether depressed or not, are 50% more likely to act out violently.

And that’s 11% of the population.

Thanks for playing. Someone as unable to grasp simple concepts, should not be preaching about who should and should not own weapons.

Take a hike lil fella


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



I don't care if convicted felons or the adjudicated mentally ill are barred from owning firearms.  Never did

IMO we are going about the whole gun control thing all wrong anyway.

We do not enforce the laws we have and those laws are not harsh enough instead we step on the rights of people who have done nothing wrong,

You want stop gun crimes?  So do I.  But telling me and millions of other people who do not commit crimes we don't have the right to own certain firearms is not going to do it


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Well at least we found one thing we can agree on! There’s a start


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


What in the world are you talking about? You honestly don’t think that depression and antidepressants fall into the realm of mental health?! Or are you just that programmed to insult and dismiss? What is it you don’t think I am grasping? This ought to be fun


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


That’s totally fine and it’s a fair debate to have. But what multiplies the problem is when it takes a day and dozens of repetitions to get a simple answer from you. You can’t simply say that you support a certain degree of regulation when it comes to weapons cause you are too dug in on your side. I have to drag it out of you one deflection at a time. How are we to have an productive debate when you act like that?


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



You don’t read well

Those with the illness rarely act out violently. 

Get it geek?

Only after these drugs are prescribed does the problems occur. 

And, nearly all mass shooters were on these, or the equally dangerous ADHD drugs. 

Gonna start a march on Washington Son? Or perhaps argue with folks about banning Doctors. By your rational, you ought too.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Dipshit here doesn’t think that prescribing depressed people pills falls within the realm of mental health. Not to burst your bubble pops but that’s exactly what it is. People struggle and seek help. How we help them is the core of the conversation. It’s the core of what mental health care is.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




And the actual research, which I have posted and you have seen shows you are wrong....the only people who need standard magazines are law abiding people who may have to defend themselves from one or more attackers who may be armed ,and to so without help.  Criminals can get any magazine they want, and mass shooters can kill lots of unarmed people with 10 round magazines...so you are only hurting normal gun owners...

And also, you are banning the pistols of law abiding gun owners who already have pistols that hold more than 10 rounds in their magazines......

The only thing you are going to do is impact law abiding gun owners...you won't save one life, stop one rape, murder or robbery.....


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 7, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...




The only gun criminals the democrats don't care about are the actual gun criminals who use guns to rape, rob, murder ......and then, when they catch them, they let them back out to do it again...meanwhile, they focus all of their actual hate on law abiding gun owners who harm no one, commit no crimes....

They are insane....


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


If LCMs don’t provide any more firepower than 10 round mags then why would banning them weaken law abiding citizens? You’re stepping all over yourself with your two conflicting arguments. Sorry but it’s true


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 7, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


Nice rant... how about people like me who own guns, support law abiding citizens right to own guns but also support common sense gun control measures.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


What is constructive about talking about a term that has NOTHING to do with owning possessing and using firearms?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


Why do you keep harping on the Militia it has ZERO to do with owning weapons.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




First.....why don't you define a large capacity magazine...so we are on the same page...for me, it would be a 100 drum magazine.

Criminals and mass shooters are different from law abiding citizens in their need for standard magazines...the 15-19 round magazines for most pistols and the 30 round magazines for rifles....

Criminals can commit rape, robbery and murder with a 6 shot revolver, they choose the victim and forcing compliance from an unarmed victim simply needs a gun with bullets......also, if they want 15-19 round magazines they steal them or get them from illegal sources.....

Mass shooters choose democrat gun free zones as targets, we know this from the mass shooters we capture and the notes from the dead ones.....shooting unarmed victims in a surprise attack doesn't change if they use 10 round magazines...as the research I posted shows....there is no difference in casualty rates.....they can kill lots of people with 10 round magazines as the shooter in Parkland did, the shooter in Santa Barbara did, and the shooter at columbine and Virginia tech did.....

The Law Abiding citizen needs as many bullets as they can carry.  When they are attacked, they will be alone, and usually targeted by ambush and likely attacked by more than one attacker.  So you want to limit them to 10 bullets between whatever size group attacks their family an the outcome, rape, robbery or murder.......that is what you want to do.....

We do not tell fire fighters before they try to put out a fire exactly how many gallons of water they get to put the fire out.....they get whatever it takes...

You are saying...if you can't save your family with 10 bullets...fuck you and your family, you should have been a better shot.

Then, in the middle of the fight you use your 10 rounds.....now, with adrenaline going through your system, your vision is dilated, you have the shakes and you have to try to change a magazine while under attack and with your body impaired by the adrenaline rush.....and that doesn't even count if you are injured, and then your body gets an even bigger chemical dump......and what if you are injured in one of your arms or hands...a defensive wound and now, because of people like you, instead of having an extra 5-9 rounds to fight with, you are forced to change your magazine...

Because someone like you doesn't like 10 round magazines......

The famous shootout in Florida between the FBI and 2 bank robbers ended with the last standing agent having to do a one handed magazine change because he was shot several times.....

You don't know how many bullets a normal person is going to need to save themselves or their family....yet you want to limit the good guy to 10 rounds, not because it has any effect on criminals or mass shooters, but simply because you don't like guns that hold more than 10 rounds...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


Look you disingenuous moron he answered your question he stated he does not believe regulations should restrict law abiding people from buying firearms meaning he DOES NOT agree with current laws.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...




When you list some common sense measures I will support them.  You haven't done that yet....nothing you propose will reduce crime or mass shootings, but it will make it more expensive, more time consuming and more legally hazardous for law abiding gun owners.....

My common sense gun control.....if you catch a criminal using a gun to commit a crime, a real crime like rape, robbery or murder, they get 30 years for using a gun......on top of any other time......

If you catch a felon with an illegal gun....they automatically get a 30 year sentence for mere possession...

That works.....it works in Japan where they have used it to stop the Yakuza from using guns.......it actually goes after the criminals who use guns, and it leaves law abiding gun owners alone......

There is no need under my common sense gun control to ban any weapon...you ban the actual criminal by locking them up.....that works...nothing you propose works and it is all simply a slow ratcheting down on the Right to Bear arms for normal gun owers.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 7, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


People depressed are usually lethargic and listless when they start taking meds to alleviate that they become active again there is a period of time between no benefit and benefit when the person may act out of anger to the situation they are in, that is NOT the drugs fault and is NOT a reason to stop prescribing them.


----------



## OKTexas (Apr 7, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




He thinks he can spring a gotcha trap, but no one is biting. LMAO


.


----------



## OKTexas (Apr 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




It's just another toe hold for the commiecrats, nothing proposed will make any difference unless NICS is properly populated with accurate data. No more yielding, no more compromise.


.


----------



## dudmuck (Apr 7, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Everyone believes in "gun control" to one extent or another.  Possibly excepting Ted Nugent...
> 
> Very few people believe we should all have access to nukes or tanks or artillery.  Very few people believe we should all have unrestricted access to fully automatic machine guns.
> 
> ...


Ah yes, Ted Nugent.
Says, "Democrats should be shot like coyotes"


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 7, 2018)

dudmuck said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone believes in "gun control" to one extent or another.  Possibly excepting Ted Nugent...
> ...




Did you have a point?


----------



## dudmuck (Apr 7, 2018)

Dale Smith said:


> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...


Looks like you made it for me.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 7, 2018)

dudmuck said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > dudmuck said:
> ...



Leftards are the ones that have claimed that they have no problem using guns to disarm those that will not acquiesce to the ban of the second amendment........fuck the leftard commies. Want my gun? You will get the ammo/spent shells first. I doubt that lily-livered cowards like yourself will be out in front of a "door to door" confiscation program...your nads haven't dropped yet.

(snicker)


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 8, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


It has to do with the meaning of the second amendment of our constitution, but if that’s too much for you to handle then it’s fine... you don’t need to engage.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 8, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


It’s just so easy to reverse the argument and use your own shit against you so I’ll just do that in this case. If you are worried that 10 rounds isn’t enough ammo to properly protect yourself then buy more magazines. 

You are stuck in a catch 22 Where you try and claim that LCMs don’t give a shooter more power then you try and take the side that it weakens people trying to protect themselves. Can’t have it both ways no matter how hard you try.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 8, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


No that’s not what he said... thanks for trying to play though, I think he can speak for himself.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 8, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


I’d support strict punishments for those committing gun crimes. I also think that background checks, a centralized database integrated with mental health and criminal histories would help, and like the restrictions put on automatic weapons and hand granades, I have no problem with restrictions on guns or accessories that are deemed as extra dangerous.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 8, 2018)

OKTexas said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


what gotchya trap are you talking about. Go ahead and expose the devious plot and enlighten us please


----------



## OKTexas (Apr 8, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...




No thanks, the individual I was communicating with knows what I mean. You're just irrelevant.


.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 8, 2018)

OKTexas said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...


In other words you are too pussy to engage. Reading that loud and clear


----------



## OKTexas (Apr 8, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




No, in other words, you're boring the hell out of me.


.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 8, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


The Supreme Court ruled you retard it is NOT important and has NOTHING to do with the right of the people to own firearms, do try and keep up.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 8, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



I answer your questions you just want to nit pick


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 8, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




What gives you the Right to tell a law abiding person what they can own when it is protected by the Constitution....and on the practical level...you haven't created a catch 22.....

I stated that criminals can rape, rob and murder without 15 round magazines, but if they want them they will get them.  Pointing any gun at an unarmed victim will force them to comply with the rape or robbery, and you can murder an unarmed victim with one bullet when they are cowering before you.....

I stated that mass shooters have already shot and killed lots of people with 10 round magazines and shown you actual research that shows you are wrong on these magazines and mass shootings.  Unarmed people do not shoot back....so the shooter...from actual research, does not have to rush to commit his acts, and as actual witnesses tell us, they are calm and relaxed as they murder unarmed victims...

I then showed you that the only one who needs 15-19 round magazines are law abiding citizens...who will be fighting for their lives against the criminals and mass shooters.....and that those 5-9 rounds could be the difference between life and death for their families.....facing one or more attackers, likely armed and attacking from surprise or ambush in the middle of the night when the victim is isolated and without help.......possibly injured and definitely suffering from the adrenaline dump making changing magazines over your arbitrary limit much more difficult, especially in the middle of an attack.....

You just don't care about the truth, facts or reality, you are irrational, and foolish.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 8, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


It’s not important? Really? Is that how you talk about our second amendment?! You should be ashamed! To me it sounds like you really understand what it means so you are deflecting


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 8, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


No you actually don’t, which I clearly point out each time you dodge


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 8, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


I acknowledge facts when they are presented. I’ve never said I wanted to disarm law abiding citizens. Im a gun owner and don’t support disarming the public. I’m making a case for smart regulation, like the current laws that we have, and I’m opening up the door to discuss if further actions should be taken. I’ve called LCMs a grey area that’s a good debate. People on your side either play hard ass and saying that there should be zero regulations as any infringe in our constitutional rights. This is why I bring up things like age restrictions, mental health and machine guns. Do you want machine guns for sale to anybody who wants to buy one, readily available at every sporting goods store, no questions asked? Cause most people would think that would dangerous and crazy. Since that is currently restricted from happening then my question is simple. Do you support those regulations or do you want a free for all. My guess is that you support the restrictions, however like the rest you are likely to spin and divert away from admitting that. Prove me wrong


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 8, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




I will live with current background checks at gun stores, but will not support background checks for private sales.  We already have laws that allow us to arrest felons who buy guns.

I think people should be allowed to buy fully automatic weapons if they want them, but using them to commit murder should stay illegal.

There should be no limits on magazine capacity, no gun registration, no licensing gun owners and taxes and fees on guns and ammo should be ended since owning a gun is a Right, and any fee on the exercise of a Right has already been declared unConstitutional in Murdock v. Pennsylvania.

Felons and the dangerously mentally ill should be kept from buying guns...non violent felons should have a path to getting their gun Rights back.

Crimes with guns, actual crimes such as rape, robbery and murder should carry a 30 year sentence, on top of the sentence for the crime.....and the gun charge cannot be bargained away.

If a felon is caught in possession of an illegal gun they should also get 30 years.....

Semi automatic weapons, rifles, pistols and shotguns are protected by the Second Amendment and all bans on these weapons need to be removed.....

That is where I stand...


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 8, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Makes perfect sense. Especially in a world that allows big pharmaceutical to treat patients (11%of the total population 12 years and older) with drugs that make them 50% more likely to commit a violent crime.

You have to wonder why, with this being true, why the left so desperately wants to disarm law abiding citizens?

Is he looking for easier targets?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 8, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


Again for the slow and amazingly STUPID, a militia has NOTHING to do with the right to keep possess and use firearms.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 8, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



Funny how another poster thought my answer was very clear I guess you can't understand


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 8, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



We do not need any more gun laws the few thousand that we have are more than enough all we need to do now is to have the testicular fortitude to enforce those laws and severely punish those who do not comply


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 8, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


I commend the directness and clarity of how you speak. As for myself I agree with about half of what you said and have a different view on the other half. Your tax and fees comment caught my attention, if you say we can’t charge fees on gun purchases because it is a right, does that translate to healthcare and our right for Life? 

As for your views on dropping regulation and restrictions on guns. I just don’t agree. Take out the constitutional right element and compare to the car industry. There are a ton of car deaths each year, but we’ve seen that regulations on how the vehicles are made, laws of the road and driver requirements have all reduced the casualties. Even though it is the drivers fault most of the time we’ve seen that making the tool (car) safer it reduces damage. Same rules apply to guns, in my opinion.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 8, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


No shit Sherlock, this conversation is obviously over your head. Just give it up, you are not getting it


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 8, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


I’ve asked the question to 5 of you dipshits and all but one has dodged. Of course y’all are backing each other up, doesn’t make you right


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 8, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



You have to wonder why posters like Slade want to make it more difficult to defend yourself in your own home. 

Are they looking for easier victims?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


Posters like Slade own guns and support any law abiding citizen to protect themselves with a firearm. You are just too dense to engage in a civil discourse about the subject so you resort to just making things up. Nice try, but you need to grow up and stop acting like a child.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 8, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



^^^^^ Troll


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 8, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


You fucking retard you keep bringing up the militia in this conversation like somehow it is important.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


How so? Why don’t you ever explain yourself? If all you have are petty lies and insults then I’m sorry to say that you are the one acting like a troll.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 8, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


I asked about the well regulated militia once as we were speaking about the second amendment and dupes like you kept dodging an answer so I kept asking. P@triot and 2aguy are the only ones that have provided direct answers to direct questions. Even though I disagree with them in many areas I respect their ideas and how they engage. You and your kind on the other hand, avoid, deflect, pivot, lie and then just resort to insults. It’s pathetic. Grow up.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 8, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


defense of self and property are considered natural rights and are in State Constitutions.

We have a Second Amendment and should have, no security problems in our free States.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 8, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


It is.  The End justifies the means.  The security of a free State is the End, my friend.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 8, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

All AR qualified militia should get to know their heavy weapons section, on a regular basis.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 8, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


Militias have NOTHING to do with our rights under the 2nd amendment retard. You keep pretending otherwise as to US Government law and Militia every male 17 to 45 is in the unorganized militia and the law does not require training drilling mustering or any other action. Which you already know most likely, so stop wasting our time with questions in this thread that have NOTHING to do with the 2nd amendment.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 8, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


The security of a free State, and what we need to muster, to solve our security problems with.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 8, 2018)




----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 8, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


First off, why are you so damn defensive and angry. Go take a few deep breaths and calm the fuck down. We are just having a conversation. Second, the second amendment is literally one sentence...

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.

This can be interpreted in many ways so when I bring up the militia for discussion and you get all pissy and try to dismiss it after several dodge and pivots then it just makes you look bad. Honestly what are you so frustrated about?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 8, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


The Supreme Court ruled that the ONLY part of that sentence that matterd was the part with the right of the people, you are trying to claim otherwise and I won't have it. NO ONE is required to belong to a MILITIA to exercise their second amendment rights , A militia is totally ignored by the Supreme Court ruling stating it was just one of many reasons one might CHOOSE to exercise their rights. You bring it up in the manner you did in an effort to claim that if the Well regulated part was ignored we did not have a right under the second, you are WRONG.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 8, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> You and your kind on the other hand, avoid, deflect, pivot, lie and then just resort to insults.


I think avoiding and deflecting is a sign of one not really understanding an issue and/or not knowing where they really stand.

If you have a position - you _should_ be able to defend it. If you can’t, at the very least you should re-examine it.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 8, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > You and your kind on the other hand, avoid, deflect, pivot, lie and then just resort to insults.
> ...


Well said. You and I have opposing views on many subjects but I’ve enjoyed the debates and you’ve made me rethink many positions and dig into some good legal and historical research. That’s what this board should be about. I’m as guilty as the next guy to get heated and let some insults fly but we have too many on here that only rant and insult without a care to think, listen, understand and then have an intelligent and respectful debate by reviewing facts.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 8, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> NO ONE is required to belong to a MILITIA to exercise their second amendment rights


You speak the *truth*, RetiredGySgt. A *right* does *not* require a person to belong to a group nor does it require _any_ other type of action. The only “requirement” for a constitutional right is that one be a U.S. citizen.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 8, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> We have a Second Amendment and should have, no security problems in our free States.


Actually, a free state drastically increases security problems. That’s the trade off. If you want security, move to an oppressive police state.

You can have Fidel Castro and Cuba. I’ll take the problems that come with freedom _any_ day.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 8, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


Well now we are moving towards an answer, it’s too bad it took so long for you to get here. So we are going to move from the constitution and on to Supreme Court rulings, is that right? Since the Supreme Court ruled that the only part of the second amendment that really matters is the last part then the rest can be ignored. Is that where you stand?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 8, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


The English language says it can be ignored you loon, the Supreme Court just made it official.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 9, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



Just because I didn't give you the yes or no answer you wanted in no way means I dodged any question


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 9, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


That’s exactly what a dodge is.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 9, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



I understood his answer. We wonder why you don't. 

Trolling?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 9, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



No I answered your question with a full sentence.  It's not my problem if you can't understand an answer of more than one word.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 9, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Excellent, then please explain his answer and how it directly addressed my question.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 9, 2018)

I want to keep and bear an AR; where do i muster to get weapons qualified?


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 9, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



I can't help the helpless


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 9, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



Now read this carefully.

It's OK to follow along with your finger on the screen

And it's even all right to move your lips while you read.

You asked me if I agree with the machine gun restrictions

I said I don't think the additional permit or the additional taxes are necessary and that anyone who can legally buy a firearm should be able to buy a fully automatic weapon.


We can surmise from this that since the current regulations require both the additional permit and tax as well as passing the background check that I disagree with 2 points of the current law regarding automatic weapons but not all the regulations

Ergo ( that means therefore)  One can see the answer to your question was not simply a yes or no

Did you understand that or should I use smaller words?


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




It was already dealt with in D.C. v. Heller.......we have an individual right to own and carry guns separate from militia service..


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




Heller dealt with this issue in great detail......the history and legal precedent going back to England...

Page 21...

Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence. 

--------------


*Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. 

----
*
1. Operative Clause. 

a. “Right of the People.” 

The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




I remember the saying in Basic Training.....you get smart or you get strong, too bad we can't make them do push ups until they understand simple concepts...


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 9, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You obviously can’t help because you don’t know what you are talking about. If all you have is insults then you are just wasting time


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 9, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


That’s great, thanks you. I wish you would have simply said that a day ago instead of going round about for pages and pages of posts. 

So let’s take away the additional permit and the taxes and look at what is needed for somebody to legally purchase a firearm, which you apparently agree with. What process to determine somebodies legality to sell or purchase a gun to you agree with?

I’m asking with honest intent of learning what your position is BTW. Not trying to lay bait.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




Westwall had an idea in a thread a couple days ago....he said it can already be done...a toll free number where you run the buyers name and drivers license number.....they tell you if they have felony convictions or outstanding warrants....

Done....

No records, no registration, and it costs nothing, and is easy and doesn't target law abiding gun owners....


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




I would also support a tattoo for violent felons.  This tattoo would be given to violent felons who can no longer buy guns,  it would be on the shoulder, hidden by a shirt.  If you are going to sell a gun to someone, you simply ask to see their shoulder, if they have the tattoo, they aren't allowed to buy...even less fuss and muss than a phone service.  This would take care of all background check needs without targeting law abiding gun owners, it wouldn't create a gun registry, and actual felons would be known instantly, at gun stores, gun shows, private sales...everywhere....


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 9, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Tattoos can be removed


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




True, but not completely, and a removed tattoo in that location would be a warning to the seller, they could then ask for a better background check...


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 9, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


I’m fine with a quick and easy process. How do you feel about a waiting period to help reduce impulse/emotional buys which could be followed by crimes.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 9, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Tattoos can be removed. In today’s age I’d think a finger print or retina scan would be totally doable and way more accurate. Agree?


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 9, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



Why delay the purchase by those not intending to commit a crime because someone may?

I guess we could also delay the rental of trucks as well because a very small number might want to use them to blow up federal buildings?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 10, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Apples and oranges in my opinion. Putting a buffer in the time frame of purchasing a gun eliminates the impulse actions that somebody in an emotional state may go through, give them some time to cool off. I don’t see it as a huge inconvienenve on law abiding citizens either. There are plenty of products that we have to wait for. Hell, Amazon prime even takes two days to deliver and that’s lightning fast!


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 10, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



I did say that
You just didn't understand it

And I also answered the second part of your question when I replied to you that I think it's acceptable that convicted felons and the adjudicated mentally ill cannot legally purchase firearms.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 10, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



A huge SO WHAT? So the theory is that someone hell bent on murder, the worst possible thing a human can do to another human, will go to a gun shop to buy the ONLY TOOL he could possibly use to MURDER?

See the problem to start with?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 10, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



No need.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 10, 2018)

simply purchasing Arms, should automatically register a person for the militia and for voting!


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 10, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Somebody hell bent on murder is likely going to achieve it one way or another. In other cases you might have somebody going through an emotional episode. Could be a domestic altercation, could be a firing from the work place, maybe a spouse was found cheating, or their dog just died who knows. But if a person is in an emotional state and wants to inflict harm on themself or another then a gun is the most efficient and destructive tool to use so doing something to prevent emotional purchases could prevent death. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a waiting period, that’s just one idea. The point is to do our best to make sure people who buy and own weapons are responsible, law abiding citizens and of sound mind. Can we at least agree on that last point?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 10, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



No.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 10, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



No, you are simply showing bias. There are countless articles on how an individual murdered his target without the use of a gun. Each one of those were 100% efficient. Yet you think you end this by delaying it? That's not even close to rational thought.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 10, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


For over 20 pages I’ve been asking pretty straight forward questions and getting everything including the kitchen sink for answers EXCEPT answer that directly address my questions. Pops and his crew of dupes, about 5 others, all either dodged my question or simply replied with insults. So I feel like I’ve been a broken record in this thread asking the same shit over and over. I just went back and reread the thread and I will say that you have been more direct than that band if idiots. I apologize if I took my frustration out on you as I may have gotten you confused with them. You danced around the point a bit when we started our discussion but got too it realatively quickly, so I’ll thank you for that.

So moving forward, I’m curious. You’ve stayed that you are ok with preventing criminals and the mental ill from buying guns, I’m assuming that means you support back ground checks as that’s the only way to tell if a customer qualifies or not, am I correct?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 10, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You see the shit answers I have to deal with? I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and apologize for venting my frustrations towards you in my last post, but you are proving to be the pain in the ass that I thought you were. If you want to engage with me then step it up and engage in an intelligent way. Don’t draw out pages of pointless back and forth. If you don’t agree with me then state why.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 10, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Did you read my statement Pops? How in the world did you get that I think we would end murder by preventing emotional gun purchases? Come back to earth. Here, since you are acting like a child I’ll even copy the first line of my last statement again for you to read... really let this soak in...

“Somebody hell bent on murder is likely going to achieve it one way or another.“

So tell me how after reading those words from my last statement, how can you possibly imply that I’m saying we could end impulse murder by delaying gun purchases. I literally said the opposite of that. Please explain your logic.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 10, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


I thought you wanted yes or no answers


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 10, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Oh ok, good call. Let’s just leave it at that then


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 10, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



YOU REFUSE TO LISTEN. We cannot open a closed mind!

No one denies that a violent, or potentially violent criminal should not have the tools to commit violent activities. The problem is, and I have demonstrated, you think a damn regulation will stop a violent criminal from acting out violently because he would be violating the law in obtaining one illegally.

The game you are playing is one of absurdity.

Murderers Murder, it's what they do

Rapists Rape, it's what they do.

THEY could give a rats ass what new bans or regulations you enact, it would go against THEIR NATURE TO CARE.

Game over dude, give it a rest.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 10, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



Then why the questions about delaying the purchase. To what ends?

A solution to a non existent problem.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 10, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


See pops the problem is all that crap you just claimed I think... I really don’t think. Just like you did with my last post, you regurgitate my positions incorrectly. I don’t know if you it because you don’t read/understand my statements or because you are such a weak debator that you have to lie about your opponents. Either way, it’s lazy and dishonest.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 10, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




Sure, we should try to stop felons and the mentally ill from getting guns. and we already have all the processes in place to do this, no new ones are needed.  What do we need?  We need the police to follow through and actually apply the ones we already have.

We do not need to limit access to guns by law abiding people based on the extremely rare mass public shooting.  In fact, the thing driving these mass public shootings are the democrat gun free zones we have created which make sure that those emotionally disturbed people you mention, have an easy, unarmed target.  

Since all research shows that armed responses to mass shooters drives them away and stops them when they happen, we should focus on getting rid of democrat gun free zones.

And to this point...nothing proposed achieves what you want.   Not raising the age to buy rifles, magazine limits or waiting periods.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 10, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I explained that pretty clearly in my original post


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 10, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




Sorry...research doesn't show that waiting periods work.....do you realize that actual mass shooters plan their attacks 6 months to 2 years in advance?  So a few days waiting period is simply Security Theater.   Criminals will wait for their straw buyer to get the gun, then use that gun for crime..

But we have actual cases of women who are being stalked being denied guns because of waiting periods and May Issue rules in various states....and then being murdered while they are waiting to get their guns....

Should you be required to wait 3 days before you vote, before you can publish a political tract?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 10, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You are a stats guy. Tell me. If a law or regulation did prevent somebody from getting a gun, or if it did prevent a murder, or if it did reduce casualties in a shooting, how would that get measured?


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 10, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




Waiting periods do nothing....and are either Security Theater or just a way to annoy law abiding gun owners...

Criminals don't care...their straw buyer will get the gun anyway.

Mass shooters plan their attacks 6 months to 2 years in advance, knowing that, how does a waiting period achieve anything?

And suicide.....Japan, China, Korea have almost absolute gun control and higher suicide rates than we do...so guns are not the issue in suicide so waiting periods don't effect  those either...


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 10, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Valid points. I think if somebody feels like they are in danger and want to protect themselves they shouldnt have to wait long. Perhaps there needs to be an expetited process in coordination with the police department to help people in these kind of situations.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 10, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




The CDC and the FBI keep stats on that.  Go To the FBI homicide table, or the CDC WISQARS site.....for actual murder rates....

Stopping a murder.....there are about a dozen studies that look at defensive gun use...the most famous was by Gary Kleck, and he found Americans use their guns over 1 million to 2.5 million times a year.....then bill clinton had his Department of Justice try to refute his findings, they did their own study and found the number at about 1,500,000 times a year...those are just defensive gun uses....so out of those you would have a percentage of lives actually saved.   There are some people who have tried to find that number ......but it isn't as accurate because most of the time when a victim shows or draws a gun, the criminal runs away......they only have to shoot really dumb criminals about 230 times a year.....


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 10, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




The anti gunners fight those laws.......  some firearm instructors and stores try to expedite that, but there should be a law...a Restraining Order isn't protection, and often is the trigger that causes the murder of the woman....


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 10, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Japan is a completely different country/society so that example is apples and oranges. Waiting periods will have no effect on shooters that plan their attacks or have straw buyers. Is it your belief that 100% of murders committed by these methodical criminals?


----------



## EGR one (Apr 10, 2018)

g5000 said:


> It's strange the NRA hates any measures which would keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.
> 
> It's almost as if they care more about gun sales than the 11,000+ people murdered by guns each year.



Absolutely none of the measures proposed by the anti-gun crowd would keep any guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.  

Personally, I don't give a tinker's damn about numbers, since one is way too many dead children.  I care about the 7 year old, shot and killed by a gang banger while playing in his front yard.  I care about the 17 year old that was shot several times while walking home from school.  I care about the 16 year old that was shot off his bicycle because he "dissed" some thug.  The number 11,000 means nothing except to the people keeping score.

Do any of you numbnuts think that the mother of that 7 year old, dead in his front yard, feels any less pain because he wasn't one of 17 killed?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 10, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


I’m not talking about defensive gun use. I’m talking about somebody who doesn’t use a gun because they couldn’t get one.


----------



## EGR one (Apr 10, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Everyone believes in "gun control" to one extent or another.  Possibly excepting Ted Nugent...
> 
> Very few people believe we should all have access to nukes or tanks or artillery.  Very few people believe we should all have unrestricted access to fully automatic machine guns.
> 
> ...



If government can show a compelling need to restrict the constitutional rights of American citizens, and if the restriction proposed, is the least restrictive means of solving that compelling need, then restriction is reasonable. 

There is no compelling need to further restrict the constitutional right of Americans to own guns, and therefore, further restrictions are unreasonable.  

I don't know of any federal laws banning the private ownership of tanks,or artillery.  Nukes might be hard to get ahold of.


----------



## EGR one (Apr 10, 2018)

g5000 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



What evidence do you have that guns are the cause of our high homicide rate?  Are knives the cause of the rising homicide rate in London?


----------



## EGR one (Apr 10, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



Did the federal government have a compelling need to severely limit public ownership of automatic weapons?  I don't think so, but I was not around when it happened, and I don't believe there was any organized opposition to doing so, then or now.  Water under the bridge. 

Does the federal government have a compelling need to limit public ownership of semi-automatic weapons, or any sort?  None has been demonstrated, so far.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 10, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



Proving a negative is impossible.

Is this the new game?


----------



## EGR one (Apr 10, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



It couldn't be measured.  However,  the possibility that a law or regulation may prevent a murder, has to be weighed against the real possibility that the law or regulation may contribute to a murder.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 10, 2018)

Muster the Militia!  We should have no security problems in our free States, we have a Second Amendment!


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 10, 2018)

EGR one said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


Does desire of the people count as compelling? Im not saying by any means that the majority of Americans want to ban ARs but if they did and it was voted on then would you accept it?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 10, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


It’s not a game but it is valid to this discussion. I actually appreciate it when people show stats like 2aguy does, however the purpose of gun regulations is prevention which as you just noted, is extremely hard, if not impossible, to show


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 10, 2018)

EGR one said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


I agree, good point


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 10, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


You mean like asking over and over about the Militia which has NOTHING to do with our right to own firearms? Like that?


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 10, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




No...we were talking mass shooters....... the ones who aren't ticked off at a boss, the ones who have made plans, those are the ones who take months to years to plan their attacks.

Japan shows that long prison sentences do stop even hardened criminals from using guns......the problem here is that gun criminals get very short sentences, we had gun criminals here in Chicago get diverted from prison into boot camps and spend less than 3 years in prison......3 of them got out and shot up a basketball court filled with rival teenagers....

The only thing that will stop criminals from using guns, except for that tiny minority, would be long prison sentences....and it would have the benefit of keeping a killer off the streets for 30 years.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 10, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




We have those stories.....

Here is one in particular..

'No one helped her': NJ woman murdered by ex while awaiting gun permit

Carol Bowne knew her best shot at defending herself from a violent ex was a gun, and not a piece of paper. And it was paperwork that left her unprotected when Michael Eitel showed up at her New Jersey home last week and stabbed her to death, say Second Amendment advocates, who charge local police routinely sit on firearms applications they are supposed to rule on within 30 days. 

Bowne, 39, had a restraining order against Eitel when he killed her in her driveway last Wednesday, but she was still waiting for Berlin Township Police Chief Leonard Check to approve the gun permit she had applied for on April 21. Tragically, she had gone to the township police department just two days before her death to check on the status of her languishing application. In another indication of her fear of Eitel, Bowne had recently installed surveillance cameras around her home, and the equipment recorded the 45-year-old ex-con attacking her as she arrived home and got out of her car.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 10, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> EGR one said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




No.....I wouldn't because you don't get to vote away Civil Rights.  There is a reason owning and carrying guns is in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and why it is so hard to change the Constitution....so that momentary emotion doesn't do something in haste, that will cause great suffering later......

The Germans in the 1920s didn't think it was a problem turning in their World War 1 military rifles and registering their hunting rifles.....20 years later, those registration lists were used to disarm Jews and the political enemies of the German Socialists.....

Do you think the German people thought, in the 1920s that 20 years in the future their country would march 12 million European men, women and children into gas chambers?  Keep in mind that Germany was a modern nation state, with the rule of law, modern universities, democratic processes, working courts........and no one saw it coming...


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 10, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



I get that, but we are having this conversation because of the school shooting that happened a month ago.

People understand why the murder rate in some Cities are what they are. Longer Jail sentences will at least get them off the street, but there is a difficult social issue, one that I've written about at some length that needs addressed long before we regulate guns any further.

We must be able to protect self while these issues are being dealt with.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 10, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Asking about the militia which is part of the second amendment is completely valid in a discussion about the second amendment. Get over it


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 10, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


I’m fine with strengthening the punishments for violent criminals that use guns.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 10, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > EGR one said:
> ...


You are right, nobody saw it coming and something horrible happened. I also think it is a lazy fear tactic to imply that a similar situation would happen in our country. It’s like those comparisons between Trump and Hitler when it comes to discrediting the media.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 10, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


The second amendment conveys a right to own firearms with ZERO requirement of belonging to a militia. The militia in this discussion as I have pointed out repeatedly is irrelevant, it has no basis in fact for a discussion on 2nd amendment rights.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 10, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


The Militia is a part of the second amendment, in fact, it is the first thing mentioned so don’t pretend that it is insignificant. You’ve made your point clear as to how much relevance you give it. That’s fine, now move one. I don’t get why you keep bringing it up


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 10, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


Look you fruit cake the Supreme Court ruled that the part before the comma has ZERO bearing on the right, that it is an individual right with NO, NADA, ZERO need for a militia. You love roe vs wade but cant seem to accept decisions you don't like how very progressive of you.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 10, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


Please post my comment that made you think I was challenging the Supreme Courts decision. I’ll wait.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 11, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


Your continued INSISTENCE that a Militia has anything to do with our rights under the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 11, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



The militia has nothing to do with the fact that the second very clearly states the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 11, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


If I’m continuoisly insisting that the Supreme Court was wrong then it should be easy for you to post a quote where I said that. Let’s see it.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 11, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


I’ll ask you too. When did I say otherwise? Post my comment


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 11, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



you seem to think it means more than it does


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 11, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




It isn't a tactic, it is history....do you know where our country will be in 50 years?   What about parts of our country.....?  Mexico has some very peaceful areas, but the areas around the border are controlled by the drug cartels and their corrupt military and police allies....the citizens have no guns, the cartels have actual military weapons.....and again, the Germans in the 1920s had no idea what was coming only 20 years later....


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 11, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


The People are the Militia.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the common law for the common defense.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 11, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


and the right belongs to the people


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 11, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


Every time you post asking about the militia in relation to owner ship you question the ruling dumb ass.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 11, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


I seem to? From what post? Quote me and show where I state or even implied that the SCOTUS was wrong


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 11, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


Every single time you claim the Militia has anything to do with our rights to own firearms you question the decision. Pretty damn simple concept.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 11, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


For example? Quote me and show an example of what you are talking about


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 11, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Show where I claimed the militia has anything to do with our rights to own firearms. Quote me. Why can neither of you post a simple quote and just prove your point and win the argument? Are you that lazy? You keep wasting time with these pointless claims and you force me to keep repeating the same question.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 11, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


LOL so I should quote your posts in this thread where you kept asking what about the militia and what well regulated meant? REALLY?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 12, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


You could post that but all it would prove was that I was asking a question. You claimed that I was saying much more than a question and I’m asking you to quote me knowing that you can’t. So maybe we can cut the shit and you can start being a little more honest and not put words in people’s mouths.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 12, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


Look you weasel there was only one reason to ask the question and that was to claim that without a well regulated militia one does not have a right to own firearms, YOU KNOW IT, I know it and so do most of the people reading this thread.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 12, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


Then why do you mention it so much?

The militia is ancillary to the right of the people


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 12, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the common law, for the common defense.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
* George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 12, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


only the right wing claims that of the left.  

Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 12, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


That’s rather presumptuous of you. How about you just stick to the actual words I use instead of assigning them a bias and incorrect motive. This is a discussion about gun rights and the second amendment. The second amendment is one sentence, I asked about how you defined that sentence. It took pages of bullshit dodges and excuses and insults to get a real answer that pointed to the Supreme Court ruling, which is a good answer btw.  One that I haven’t challenged despite your incorrect claims that I have. Yet the insults continue to fly... and you wonder why I have to constantly repeat myself and why I have to constantly tell you to grow the fuck up. It’s because you all act like children.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 12, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


I don’t mention it so much. I asked a question and got dozens of dodges and insults so I simply repeated the question until I got a real answer. Just like now when I’ve asked both of you to show a quote where I challenged the scotus ruling or claimed the people didn’t have the right to bear arms like y’all have claimed I’ve said. You can’t quote me because I never said those things so now you are moving the goalposts and trying to recover from your lies.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 12, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


Ahh yes more lies from you I answered right away why the Militia had nothing to do with our right to bear arms.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 12, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


it does, specifically in our Second Amendment; especially if you are not well regulated and whine about gun control.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 12, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


You may have, there were several in the thread that I was talking too and I got dozens of dodges which is why I kept asking the question. If that’s the case then I apologize. What are the other lies that you think Ive told? 

You are still not excused for your lies about me though which I think it’s pretty apparent that you can’t back up.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 12, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



I never said anything about any SCOTUS ruling so why would I answer a question about it?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 12, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Because we were talking about the second amendment! What is it that you aren’t understanding?? This is getting ridiculous


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 12, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



Why would you ask me to quote about SCOTUS when I never once said anything to you about it?

You're claiming I said you challenged a SCOTUS ruling?

I didn't so stop saying I did


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 12, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


You just love moving the goal posts don’t you? I got both you and your friend coming after me, dumb and dumber, both saying I said things I didn’t say and both unable to back up your bullshit. He used the SCOTUS argument you are saying what exactly? Why don’t you clarify what you are trying to pin on me and then we can see if you can back it up.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 12, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


Your claims ring hollow there is absolutely NO reason to talk about militias in regards the rights granted under the 2nd amendment. NONE NADA ZIPPO. The right is an individual right NOT associated with any membership in a militia.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 12, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Well since a well regulated militia is  the first thing mentioned in the second amendment, which consists of a single sentence, then I think it is very relevant to bring up. You can simply make the point that the militia has no relation to the people as stated by the US Supreme Court and the conversation can continue. Instead we have pages of insults and childish banter. So the conclusion remains that you need to grow up and start acting like an intelligent adult when you debate


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 12, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




Michael Knowles from the Dailywire addressed this with Eugene Volokh one of the attorneys who works on 2nd Amendment cases........the militia part of the sentence is the Dependent clause....it is not the Independent clause and has no bearing on the meaning of the independent clause....and that is only the grammar involved, history and legal precedent also state that owning a gun is detached from militia service..


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 12, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


Actually you brought it on I asked over and over why you brought it up when it had NO BEARING on our rights and you just made excuses. ASnd IT STILL has no BEARING on the RIGHT to own firearms, NONE NADA ZIP.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 12, 2018)

I believe we merely need to establish the Office of Sargent Major General, for Dogma.  

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia, every time this issue needs to be quibbled.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 13, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


You are asking me to prove something that I never said

I have never once mentioned any court rulings to you


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 13, 2018)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


Proof of judicial activism?  The People are the Militia.  That is the common law.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 13, 2018)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


What have you said?


----------



## P@triot (Apr 18, 2018)

Law enforcement literally ran away. And with thousand rioting, more than 6 rounds were needed. Hell, more than 600 rounds were needed.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 18, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> The People are the Militia.


No snowflake. The people are the people. The militia are the militia. Words have meaning. Look up the word “people” in the dictionary and you will *not* see “militia” anywhere.

Now...go play with your toys. The adults are trying to talk here.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 18, 2018)

Failed left-wing policy doing what *failed* left-wing policy does...


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 18, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Law enforcement literally ran away. And with thousand rioting, more than 6 rounds were needed. Hell, more than 600 rounds were needed.


Was there any, "hue and cry"; there is Chaos in the streets, (Wellness of) Regulators, assemble!


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 18, 2018)

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > The People are the Militia.
> ...


Yes, the People are the Militia; where was the "select law militia", to distinguish when it is no longer a matter for civilian law enforcement and is time to,

Muster the Militia!


----------



## P@triot (Apr 18, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


No snowflake. The people are the people. The militia are the militia. Words have meaning. Look up the word “people” in the dictionary and you will *not* see “militia” anywhere. Here - I will prove it to you:



 

As you can see - the word “militia” does *not* appear anywhere.

Now...as I previously said...go play with your toys. The adults are trying to talk here.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 18, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Muster the Militia!


At this point...I would be happy if you were simply capable of “mustering” the English vocabulary. Words have meaning. People is not a synonym for militia.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 18, 2018)

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


special pleading is simply that.  only the disingenuous right wing, does that.

Militia: all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.



> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_


----------



## P@triot (Apr 19, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Militia: all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
> 
> 
> > "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> > *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_


George Mason wasn’t responsible for designing the English language...


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 19, 2018)

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Militia: all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
> ...


check a dictionary.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 19, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> check a dictionary.


I did. And then I posted it. And you ended up looking foolish.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 20, 2018)

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > check a dictionary.
> ...


Should i ask about your, chart reading skills?

Militia: all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service


> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> *— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 20, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



The mention of the militia is separated from the right to bear arms by a comma. The comma means Therefore. A militia, that is necessary to insure a "free state" is only possible by the acquisition of arm's supplied by the "people".

You would make us believe that the Founders, having just fought a bloody war, where they struggled to acquire "arms", put in the founding document a statement that would require "the people" to ask a repressive government permission to arm itself against the governments repression with arms supplied by this repressive government.

Please, tell me why they would have done that?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 20, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


No I don’t think that at all nor did I say that. However I do think given what was going on in those times the founders were intent on setting up a republic where states had the right to create laws and defend themselves against a repressive federal government, hence the militia. The amendments weren’t all writen for the abstract future, hence the $20 litigation amendment, some were specific towards what was happening in those times, so it is fair to have discussions about that.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 20, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



Then you must repeal the amendment. I actually would back a constitutional convention. You?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 20, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Not necessarily. The right to bear arms is a right but it is not absolute and our government has the ability to set the parameters by instituting regulations to benefit the public safety. You are correct that the regulation process would be easier if the amendement was repealed or modified, but I don’t ever see that happening.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 20, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



OK, in at least some detail, what regulations are you proposing that qualifies as improving public safety? How will your proposal have a positive effect on the numbers or stop:

1. Violent criminals from acting violently ( the greatest number of gun related deaths, 80% of which are gang related)
2. Suicidal individuals from committing suicide using a different method ( combining #1 and #2 accounts for 99% of the total)

Now, it appears your regulations can only affect 1%, or 1 death per day caused by accidental death due to a gun.

But lets drill down even further:

Violent Criminal activity: Other than gang related killings, they prey on those weaker then themselves in nearly every case. Training will not stop this and neither will a ban on bump stocks or AR Style rifles. They could care less if you ban them, they are criminals and simply don't care if you say they can't have them, they will get them

Gang related killings: They are organized and will get any weapon they so desire.

Of the above your training accomplishes nothing and neither has the bans, but it does make the weakest, more vulnerable.

Suicides by gun. Moving suicide from, someone killing themselves by using a gun, to killing themselves in a car accident, jumping off of a building or taking pills does not lower the death count, and gun safety training, banning AR's and bump stocks (never used in suicide to begin with) solves nothing.

So, then we are left with the "public safety" issue. That would be 1 death per day out of a 300,000,000 total population.

The chance of dying in an accidental death by gunshot is 1 in 300,000,000, which you claim is a public health hazard that requires action.

Yet the chances of dying by dozens upon dozens of other activities, or products are MUCH GREATER that 1 in 300,000,000.

You really want to lower the "public health hazard" bar that low? Should we have mandatory government training with all of those? Or just those that are politically correct at any given time.

A solution in search of a problem


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 20, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Simply stated I think gun training and making sure we sell guns to responsible citizens is the foundation. Also limiting firepower and improving the safety of guns is important as well. 

I understand that guns are a right and cars are not but we can learn from some of the ways we regulated our automobiles and roads to reduce death and injury. We have done good and effective things with guns as well so I don’t think we are too far off. The biggest problem I see right is in our dishonest and hyperbolic discourse. It overshadows productive debate and nothing gets done.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 20, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



I am ready to have an actual debate, but any reduction my right, without a clear and concise reason for me, a law abiding citizen, to do so is simply not going to happen.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 20, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




The AR-15 is the same rifle as all the other civilian rifles...so by limiting power you mean actual fully automatic rifles...right?


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 20, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




In Europe they have made training so prohibitive that normal, law abiding people can't get guns...meanwhile, criminals get guns easily...do you see the problem with requiring training, outside of the Constitutionality of it?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 20, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Yes, I don’t have a problem with ARs, I think the automatic regulations are useful


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 20, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I don’t think it should be prohibitive. I think it should work like getting a drivers license and driving a car.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 21, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




Sorry.....if you allowed anti gunners to get control over the requirements it would be like New York, where getting a gun is almost impossible and where getting a carry permit takes being rich or politically connected....that is a violation of Rights.....


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 21, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



But that’s a poll tax, and those don’t fly


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 22, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


That’s a lazy argument and you know it. I’m not saying that anti gunners should take control of everything. Like with most things the answer is in the middle


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 22, 2018)

Pop23 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Why don’t they fly?


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 22, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



You’ll have to ask the Supreme Court.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 22, 2018)

Our Second Amendment is part of our supreme law of the land.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 22, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




New York has already made it almost impossible for law abiding New Yorkers to own and carry guns......dittos democrat controlled counties in California.....

And again, any mandatory training would be unConstitutional...


----------



## P@triot (Apr 22, 2018)

And the debate is officially over!


> Indeed, the CDC study, which the federal agency conducted from 1996 to 1998, found there are *2.46 million defensive gun uses* in the U.S. *each year*.


One would have to be an absolute unhinged lunatic to proclaim that we should trade 30,000 lives (the overwhelming majority of which are the result of criminals killing criminals and suicides) for *2.46 million* lives (almost all of which are honest, law abiding citizens).

Newly revealed government statistics hidden from public dismantle liberal gun control narrative


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 22, 2018)

P@triot said:


> And the debate is officially over!
> 
> 
> > Indeed, the CDC study, which the federal agency conducted from 1996 to 1998, found there are *2.46 million defensive gun uses* in the U.S. *each year*.
> ...




Do you wonder how fast they will stop their demands that we let the CDC do more gun research...remember how they were bitching and whining about the imaginary ban on gun research......and now that we found actual gun research that they hid, they will now want to stop all pro gun research...


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 22, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


If what New York did was unconstitutional then it could be appealed to SCOTUS and those laws could be overturned. I’m the mean time we are governed by a republic where each state can create their own laws. Perhaps while trying strict gun regulation in a big city like NY we find that it has a positive effect on crime and public safety, perhaps we learn the opposite. That’s kind of the point and those laws are created by reps that are voted in by the people.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 22, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...




Sorry......the states don't get to infringe on Civil Rights..... Federalism doesn't allow it...


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 22, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Which is why we have a SCOTUS


----------



## P@triot (Apr 22, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> I’m the mean time we are governed by a republic where each state can create their own laws.


So long as those laws do not conflict with the U.S. Constitution and the rights of the American people. New York’s anti-gun laws do both.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 23, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > I’m the mean time we are governed by a republic where each state can create their own laws.
> ...


That’s why we have a Supreme Court. If a law is not constitutional then it can be appealed and undone


----------



## P@triot (Apr 23, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


Well that’s literally like saying it’s ok to rape a woman because we have a court to decide if the person did do the rape and to punish them.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 23, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> That’s why we have a Supreme Court. If a law is not constitutional then it can be appealed and undone


Oh...by the way...we *don’t* have a Supreme Court anymore. The Democrats have stacked it with political activists instead of actual justices committed to upholding the U.S. Constitution. Quite the contrary, those activists are committed to tearing down the U.S. Constitution and replacing it with the progressive ideology.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 23, 2018)

2aguy said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Only the right wing has, no solutions and nothing but repeal.

We have a Second Amendment.

This is an Article from the New York State Constitution:



> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.



Anyone who wants an AR; can muster and become Necessary.  And, get to know their heavy weapons section.


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 23, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


No it’s not. Guns are a dangerous tool and a big responsibility, otherwise we could hand them out to children and allow them to take them to school. But we don’t because they are regulated. The SCOTUS is part of our system and they decide the constitutionality of our laws. Not people like you


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 23, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > That’s why we have a Supreme Court. If a law is not constitutional then it can be appealed and undone
> ...


They are presidentially appointed officials as designed by our constitution and our founding fathers. If you don’t like the way our system is designed then you can campaign for changes to be made


----------



## P@triot (Apr 23, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> This is an Article from the New York State Constitution:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thankfully for ALL Americans - we operate under the U.S. Constitution and *not* the New York state constitution.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 23, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> No it’s not. Guns are a dangerous tool and a big responsibility


And rape *isn’t*?!?


----------



## Slade3200 (Apr 23, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > No it’s not. Guns are a dangerous tool and a big responsibility
> ...


Rape isn’t a tool that we sell in stores. You’re off the rails with that comparison


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 23, 2018)

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > This is an Article from the New York State Constitution:
> ...


Thankfully, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 23, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Thankfully, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.


Thankfully, only fascists desire gun control. All rational people still oppose it.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 23, 2018)

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Thankfully, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.
> ...


Only in right wing, anarcho-chaotic fantasy.

Our Founding Fathers were about Order over Chaos.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 23, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Our Founding Fathers were about Order over Chaos.


You literally wouldn’t know a “Founding Father” if one walked up and smacked you in your face.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 23, 2018)

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Our Founding Fathers were about Order over Chaos.
> ...


Projecting much, right winger?



> *We the People* of the United States, in *Order* to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


----------



## P@triot (May 7, 2018)

All tyrants want to disarm others while being sourrounded by an arsenal themselves.

NRA member asks Alyssa Milano’s security if they’re armed at anti-gun rally. Watch the response.


----------



## P@triot (May 7, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Bwahahahahaha!!! Holy shit...I can see why you are a minimum wage worker. You literally have the lowest IQ of _anyone_ I have ever encountered. The word “order” used there does *not* mean the opposite of chaos. It means to arrange, you low IQ dimwit. As in “We the people, arranging for a more perfect union”.


----------



## danielpalos (May 7, 2018)

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


double entendre, or multitasking is still beyond the right wing?


----------



## P@triot (May 7, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Uh...what does “multitasking” have to do with the fact that you thought “in order to form a more perfect union” meant law and order?


----------



## Pop23 (May 7, 2018)

Slade3200 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



Guns are a tool that we sell in stores that rapists don't want their victims to have. Enough of a reason to sell them in stores if you ask me. Rapists, of course would disagree.


----------



## danielpalos (May 7, 2018)

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


In Order to form a more perfect Union is not the equivalent to In Chaos to form a more perfect Union.


----------



## P@triot (May 8, 2018)




----------



## danielpalos (May 8, 2018)

P@triot said:


> View attachment 192635


it doesn't.  

why isn't there a class of Arms, for the unorganized militia?


----------



## P@triot (May 9, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 192635
> ...


Bingo!


----------



## P@triot (May 12, 2018)

Thank God for our right to keep and bear arms.


> In the years following the enactment of the concealed carry law, Colorado State University—which permitted concealed firearms on campus—experienced *a 60% drop in* reported *crimes*.


Conservative policy always ends in positive results. Progressive policy always ends in catastrophic failure.

Concealed Carry on Campus Is More Common, and Useful, Than You Thought


----------



## danielpalos (May 12, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Thank God for our right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> > In the years following the enactment of the concealed carry law, Colorado State University—which permitted concealed firearms on campus—experienced *a 60% drop in* reported *crimes*.
> ...


Concealed carry in Chicago, should also work.


----------



## P@triot (May 13, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Concealed carry in Chicago, should also work.


And it would.


----------



## danielpalos (May 13, 2018)

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Concealed carry in Chicago, should also work.
> ...


should they try it?


----------



## P@triot (May 13, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


What do you think?


----------

