If you didn't catch Matthew Mcconaughey from the White House breifing room, live, You need to

[White 6]

At last you finally admit that you are a leftist gun controller and support confiscation - even of your own guns. After all the time you spent pretending to be a libertarian moderate. Yet another example of a veteran who, sadly, have thrown out your oath to the Constitution.

That wasn't even a Freudian slip. Saw your post. Re-read the one you quoted and edited one word left out on original typing.
Made sense to me. I would Not do a total ban on semi-automatics and don't think that is what will come aboutm but the regulation on ownership and use need to be tightened.

I would not support confiscation and never have (unless owned by a felon not allowed to have firearms), but would regulate them tighter on age to buy (moving to 21), where to not be carried, how to be secured. I have always favored background checks. I favor stop and frisk for illegally owned weapons on the streets, no matter who it harelips. The situation out there has gotten ridiculous and these mass shootings need to curtailed, even if it requires tighter regulation. My oath to the constitution is fine. Your thinking there is no regulating within those rights is the problem. There have been some regulations for as long as I can remember, mostly back to the days when Tommy Guns were popular with the mob. Must work, how many people shot with Tommy Guns in the last 20 years.

 

[woodwork201]

I'm on the fence because I understand the impetus behind them, but I have a real problem with the lack of due process. I thought that was fairly clear... or at least easy to deduce for the moderately intelligent...

As for people who lose the constitutional rights even with due process, tough shit, I guess you shouldn't have committed that crime. Seriously, you want convicted violent felons to retain their 2nd amendment rights? People convicted of spousal abuse... rape...? Yeah, let's treat them as if they did nothing to offend a civil society...

Move along now.

Thanks for the clarification. You support authoritarian, tyrannical even, government action outside of the Constitution. If you're convicted of a felony once, then the next time you're even accused you go to prison without a trial. If you've ever been convicted of a crime, the government can search you at any time. If you've been convicted of a crime, you do not get a lawyer for your next trial if ever even accused again - oh, wait; you don't need a lawyer, you don't get a trial.

As bad as are these constitutional violations that you support, the worst is that you support the government operating outside of the Constitution at all. If they can operate outside the Constitution in any one thing then you must agree that they have the right to operate outside the Constitution in any other thing they choose; the Constitution just doesn't matter.

It's not really OK to be anti-constitutional, anti-American but the Constitution that you hate so much protects your right to be such an idiot anyway so you're still entitled to your opinion and to voice it - for now.

 

[woodwork201]

That wasn't even a Freudian slip. Saw your post. Re-read the one you quoted and edited one word left out on original typing.
Made sense to me. I would Not do a total ban on semi-automatics and don't think that is what will come aboutm but the regulation on ownership and use need to be tightened.

I would not support confiscation and never have (unless owned by a felon not allowed to have firearms), but would regulate them tighter on age to buy (moving to 21), where to not be carried, how to be secured. I have always favored background checks. I favor stop and frisk for illegally owned weapons on the streets, no matter who it harelips. The situation out there has gotten ridiculous and these mass shootings need to curtailed, even if it requires tighter regulation. My oath to the constitution is fine. Your thinking there is no regulating within those rights is the problem. There have been some regulations for as long as I can remember, mostly back to the days when Tommy Guns were popular with the mob. Must work, how many people shot with Tommy Guns in the last 20 years.

I agree it wasn't likely a Freudian slip. I took it as a confession. You can claim otherwise but your other posts support the confession, not the edit. If the government can ban any gun then they can ban, well, any gun. If they can ban AR-15s then all that's left is to try to negotiate to keep them from taking every gun and they have proven, many have openly admitted, they will come a little at a time until they have every gun. You're an anti-gun, gun banning, gun confiscator. No; your oath is not fine.

 

[woodwork201]

Beats me. Did she request or are you just raising another straw argument?

What an immature, childish, response. It doesn't beat you; you know they would not. It's not a straw argument because we're not talking about Uvalde citizen makes a speech or writes a letter to the local paper editor; we're talking about a private citizen, actor, getting access to the pulpit at the Whitehouse briefing room. I can't find a single instance in history where another private citizen was given access to speak at that pulpit so McConaughey is not speaking as a private citizen, he's speaking as a spokesperson volunteer for the Biden administration.

 

[woodwork201]

Some are. If their profession requires them to use guns and they get proper training in those careers, then that’s fine with me. Fine with Florida as well.

I'm all for putting gun-safety courses back in the public schools. We could even do some gun safety down the kindergarten and even the pre-k level. Replace transsexuals with the NRA in the school curriculums with age-appropriate gun safety training. For Pre-k through 2nd grade or so, emphasize do-not-touch. As kids get older, make sure they understand that shot and dead is dead, no coming back like it is on cartoons.

By the time a kid is in the 5th grade, they should be learning to point a single-action or bolt-action 22 down range, only at targets and not at people, how to properly aim to hit the target, how to clear the weapon and then safety check it - is the gun actually empty, is the barrel clear or obstructed, etc.

By the 7th grade they should be learning to get their younger siblings behind them when they're all hiding in the bedroom from a home invader so that if the 7th grader has to shoot a home invader, his or her siblings are safe.

By 8th or 9th grade, and even possibly as young as the 6th grade, they need to learn hunter safety - ensure you actually see the thing you're shooting at, not just heard something in the woods. Wear hunter orange at any time you're in the woods, most certainly in any hunting season but possibly at any time.

I'm glad you support all this gun safety training, too. Oh, I know you'll disagree on the age by a year or so here and there but at least you agree that all this gun safety training would be a wonderful thing and reduce gun deaths.

 

[woodwork201]

Well, I guess I would have to know if anybody was killed with a handgun in Uvalde or a shotgun in buffalo, which I don't. I will say, both those dumbass young men bought their through normal channels, last I heard. No of what he proposed or that I said, for that matter will be completely effective by would have a lowering effect. If it saved one school shooting, would it be worth it or does it only matter if it is the school your kids or grandkids go to?

It doesn't matter what gun the shooters chose to use; what matters is that they had other options, proven other options because those options were in their possession. Had they not had their AR-15s do you think they would have just not killed with their other options? You're really not even trying to have an honest discussion.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I'm all for putting gun-safety courses back in the public schools. We could even do some gun safety down the kindergarten and even the pre-k level. Replace transsexuals with the NRA in the school curriculums with age-appropriate gun safety training. For Pre-k through 2nd grade or so, emphasize do-not-touch. As kids get older, make sure they understand that shot and dead is dead, no coming back like it is on cartoons.

By the time a kid is in the 5th grade, they should be learning to point a single-action or bolt-action 22 down range, only at targets and not at people, how to properly aim to hit the target, how to clear the weapon and then safety check it - is the gun actually empty, is the barrel clear or obstructed, etc.

By the 7th grade they should be learning to get their younger siblings behind them when they're all hiding in the bedroom from a home invader so that if the 7th grader has to shoot a home invader, his or her siblings are safe.

By 8th or 9th grade, and even possibly as young as the 6th grade, they need to learn hunter safety - ensure you actually see the thing you're shooting at, not just heard something in the woods. Wear hunter orange at any time you're in the woods, most certainly in any hunting season but possibly at any time.

I'm glad you support all this gun safety training, too. Oh, I know you'll disagree on the age by a year or so here and there but at least you agree that all this gun safety training would be a wonderful thing and reduce gun deaths.

Not sure if this is a joke or not. But no. I don’t agree with that.

 

[White 6]

I agree it wasn't likely a Freudian slip. I took it as a confession. You can claim otherwise but your other posts support the confession, not the edit. If the government can ban any gun then they can ban, well, any gun. If they can ban AR-15s then all that's left is to try to negotiate to keep them from taking every gun and they have proven, many have openly admitted, they will come a little at a time until they have every gun. You're an anti-gun, gun banning, gun confiscator. No; your oath is not fine.

I realized how you took it, when I reread the part the system took, copied above your reply and thought WTF myself. Surprised you or somebody didn't quote highlighting just that one sentence and ram it down my keyboard before. I would resist confiscation of mine. Unless you were a criminal, I wouldn't favor or support confiscation or yours.
Some guns, like full-auto have been banned or should I say practically banned for many years before I was born, yet we still have fully legal access to purchase and even carry a wide variety, used for a variety of very useful normal purposes. Like McConaughey, I was raised with guns, being taught responsible use and care from an early age, and I own a variety, even now. My carry pistol is in the holster on the back of my chair, locked and loaded as I type. We enjoy guns in our society and always have, but as population density and (quite frankly) a marked decline in general personal responsibility and mental instability increase in the masses, as seen in our society on a daily basis, I do think tighter regulation is part of the path to lowering the number of mass shootings in schools, churches and other public places. The Supreme Court already ruled, years ago, regulation is not unconstitutional.

 

[woodwork201]

They burned our cities for 7 months, they tried to murder the entire republican baseball team, they just now tried to murder a conservative Supreme Court Justice.......they are out of control now, imagine if they lose in 2024...

I have full confidence in the left's ability to steal the 2024 election; they've already demonstrated their skill and they'll be even better at it after the lessons they learned in 2020 and will learn in 2022.

While I hope I am wrong, we'll have to wait until then to know. Should Biden, or Harris, or any Democrat win in this environment, there is nothing at all that would convince me the election was honest.

 

[White 6]

It doesn't matter what gun the shooters chose to use; what matters is that they had other options, proven other options because those options were in their possession. Had they not had their AR-15s do you think they would have just not killed with their other options? You're really not even trying to have an honest discussion.

I think they usually would not have been able to kill as many. Less dead is better. How more honest with you can I get? The most famous mass shootings of late have not been with engagements where a majority were killed with pistol or shotgun, even if the shooter possessed them at the time of the mass shooting. Which of the statements in this response can you honestly say are not true?

 

[woodwork201]

Not sure if this is a joke or not. But no. I don’t agree with that.

Oh, so you weren't being completely honest with us when you suggested that some 18 year olds might be capable of safely handling a gun because they've had gun safety training. In reality, and why am I surprised (really, I'm not), gun safety training or not, you want guns banned. Thanks for clearing it up for us.

 

[Quasar44]

Dont underestimate McConaughey

He is a failed actor and a HS drop out

 

[White 6]

What an immature, childish, response. It doesn't beat you; you know they would not. It's not a straw argument because we're not talking about Uvalde citizen makes a speech or writes a letter to the local paper editor; we're talking about a private citizen, actor, getting access to the pulpit at the Whitehouse briefing room. I can't find a single instance in history where another private citizen was given access to speak at that pulpit so McConaughey is not speaking as a private citizen, he's speaking as a spokesperson volunteer for the Biden administration.

No. It was accurate if she did not request to speak there. Hard to argue with "what if" as the choices are limitless, but unreal.
So he makes a good presentation, due to his skills as an actor. OK. I agree. But, fact remains he is the only actor granted that stage that day, because he grew up in that town and linked by history to it, as well as him being an very good speaker. Only those opposed to hearing that normal owners like for example, myself, are not set in stone against regulation being stated eloquently and with passion, on a national stage as the debate goes forward, were upset, as they have usually managed to just suck the air out of the room with hollow 2nd amendment argument that supposedly all real gun owners support, no matter who or how many get killed. Well, it just ain't so.

 

[woodwork201]

I realized how you took it, when I reread the part the system took, copied above your reply and thought WTF myself. Surprised you or somebody didn't quote highlighting just that one sentence and ram it down my keyboard before. I would resist confiscation of mine. Unless you were a criminal, I wouldn't favor or support confiscation or yours.
Some guns, like full-auto have been banned or should I say practically banned for many years before I was born, yet we still have fully legal access to purchase and even carry a wide variety, used for a variety of very useful normal purposes. Like McConaughey, I was raised with guns, being taught responsible use and care from an early age, and I own a variety, even now. My carry pistol is in the holster on the back of my chair, locked and loaded as I type. We enjoy guns in our society and always have, but as population density and (quite frankly) a marked decline in general personal responsibility and mental instability increase in the masses, as seen in our society on a daily basis, I do think tighter regulation is part of the path to lowering the number of mass shootings in schools, churches and other public places. The Supreme Court already ruled, years ago, regulation is not unconstitutional.

So you admit that the cause of increased crime is not the gun, and even suggest one valid cause - lack of personal responsibility, yet you continue to argue for steps to solve the crime that aren't related to the cause of the crime. You seem to be suggesting that we simply accept the trend to reduced personal responsibility and, to make up for that, we restrict the rights of those who do take responsibility for their own actions and do obey the law.

Why not deal with the causes of crime and, for those who insist on being criminals anyway, lock them up for a very long time in terrible conditions.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Oh, so you weren't being completely honest with us when you suggested that some 18 year olds might be capable of safely handling a gun because they've had gun safety training. In reality, and why am I surprised (really, I'm not), gun safety training or not, you want guns banned. Thanks for clearing it up for us.

I was being honest. That doesn’t mean I want a pre-k through high school curriculum for gun training.

 

[woodwork201]

I think they usually would not have been able to kill as many. Less dead is better. How more honest with you can I get? The most famous mass shootings of late have not been with engagements where a majority were killed with pistol or shotgun, even if the shooter possessed them at the time of the mass shooting. Which of the statements in this response can you honestly say are not true?

Over 100 rounds were fired in Buffalo. The shooting lasted 6 minutes. That means he reloaded 3 times at least. He could have killed 50 times as many people in 6 minutes with an AR or with a single-stack 9mm - especially if he has one of those 9mms that blows the lungs right out of the rib cage when hit.

He could easily have reloaded 3 times or 30 times in 6 minutes; he was not going to be attacked during reload - and why is that? Because he was the only one in the place that had a gun. The solution to shooters is not to take away legally owned guns but is, instead, to make sure there are far more legally owned guns. If the shooter stopped to reload then someone who was hiding, laying down, or otherwise trying to stay alive but was armed and thinking, could have popped up and shot the shooter.

The assumption of a shooter should be that he will be shot and stopped in seconds. But that is not what they expect; what they expect is to be the only person with a gun in a gun free zone.

The Uvalde shooter fired at least 164 rounds, meaning that he reloaded at least 5 times. He could just have easily reloaded 500 times in the amount of time he was firing. But let's go with what he was carrying: 11 magazines. Had had he been carrying 11 single-stack 9mm magazines, let's say 10 rounds, he would have had 110 rounds. At close range, against children, that could have easily been 110 dead kids but let's say it took 2 shots to kill a child - he could have easily killed 55 children.

But let's consider what would have happened had the shooter gone into the school with a 5-round shotgun and pockets filled with 50 buckshot shells. If he went in and shot two or three people to start and then slowly, calmly, started adding rounds to his pump action shotgun, and someone tried to attack him because he only had a shotgun and not an evil AR-15, he would have calmly shot them, never being without ammunition, and he could have kept that up for an hour and killed every kid in site.

None of your suggestions can be expected to change a single thing about these shootings. They don't change whether the shootings happen or not and they don't change the number of dead. If you want to save children, lock the fucking school doors. But, no, that doesn't fit your anti-gun objective.

 

[woodwork201]

I was being honest. That doesn’t mean I want a pre-k through high school curriculum for gun training.

Is it teaching gun safety that you object to or is it taking out the transsexual classes that bother you? What if they had both, would it be OK to teach kids how to be safe around guns then? I mean, what good is it to groom them for the pedophiles if we then don't keep them alive? I guess I just don't understand why you would be against teaching children gun safety.

7-year-old finds gun and kills little sister; mom arrested

WESTMINSTER, Colo. (AP) — A 7-year-old boy accidentally shot his younger sister to death on Tuesday after finding an unsecured shotgun at their home in suburban Denver. Their mother has been...

apnews.com

I know the mother was arrested in this story, and should have been, but that doesn't save the dead sister or the mental health of the 7-year-old boy who killed his sister and has to live with it for the rest of his life. But you don't support gun safety for children. Your hatred of guns, of gun owners, of the 2nd Amendment, is so deep that you'd rather see more dead babies than to teach them to be safe when they find a gun - and don't respond that they shouldn't have found the gun; none of us disagree with that but they did, and they do, and they will. So let's teach them to be safe. But, no, you're against it.

 

[woodwork201]

If it saved one school shooting, would it be worth it or does it only matter if it is the school your kids or grandkids go to?

Really? You think that surrendering a right for all law-abiding citizens in the country is worth it to save a single crime? What, then, is worth more than a life? Anything? Is the convenience of driving a car 2 miles to the grocery store worth the lives of all the children killed in auto accidents? Far more children are killed in car accidents than by any kind of gun. We could all take public transportation. If there were only public buses on the streets, there'd literally be zero fatal accidents.

If Ukraine would only surrender to Putin, how many children would be saved? Isn't it worth it if it saves even just a single child?

If the border was secured with an impregnable wall, how many children's lives would be saved? Wouldn't it be worth it if it saved a single child?

 

[woodwork201]

Hard to argue with "what if" as the choices are limitless, but unreal.

Hypocritical response. You propose what-ifs (hypotheticals) all the time. Your suggestion that fewer people might be killed if ARs were banned is purely hypothetical. Your suggestion that shooters might not use the other guns they have in their possession if they didn't have their AR-15s is purely hypothetical. I can post plenty of stories of mass shootings where the shooter didn't have an AR-15 so they used the gun they had.

In fact, in 100% of mass shootings where the shooter didn't have an AR-15, they used the other weapon they had in their possession so it is absolutely a statistical certainty that a mass murderer will use the weapon they have available, even if it's not an AR-15. In fact, even if it's not a firearm at all. Prove me wrong. Give us a single instance of a mass murder without an AR-15 that didn't use the weapons at their disposal that weren't AR-15s.

 

[eagle1462010]

Those who push Red Flag laws are taking us on the path of Europe. They should be opposed every step of the way. New York should just secede from the rest of the country along with California..........so we don't have to listen to those wankers anymore.........