Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

[Defiant1]

Perhaps if the Democrat party would stop demonizing guns (inanimate objects) more people would be comfortable owning, learning to shoot and would carry. We constantly hear how we should wait for law enforcement but, even where cops can get to the perp right away (as with the Garlic Festival) still people had to die and be injured. My contention is that if guns were acceptable for people to open-carry, this little punk would have been put down quickly and efficiently.

The US military is barred from acting on US soil.

And the second was not conceived for the possibility of an attack by a foreign power. It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.

So what other rights are you willing to give up to stop criminals from committing crimes>\?

How about your 4th or 5t amendment rights? I mean if you're innocent you shouldn't care if the police search your home whenever they want or if they arrest and innterrogste you for hours on end right?

It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.
Maybe they had both reasons on their minds. Considering what they had just been through with the King of England, can you blame them? That is no longer a valid argument either, though, since we would have a snowball's chance in hell of fighting the US military with our personal collections of AR's, AK's and SKS's should a despotic government try to overthrow our democracy.

That may be your opinion

But you underestimate what several million committed people can do and how much of the US military would oppose the government if it really came down to it?

I think it would be more than you do obviously.

And the second amendment even if it doesn't expressly state it is also about the right of an individual to protect his own life. The framers all thought that self preservation was such an obvious and natural right that there was no reason to codify it

Does it take 29 rifles to protect your own life? How many handguns?
LIMITING and strictly registering and vetting owners of firearms would not take away the opportunity for responsible people from bearing arms. The founders lived in a very different world, culturally and technologically. That is why the Constitution was designed to change with the times.

--------------------------------------------------------- in the USA you can own any number of cars , motorcycles or guns that you like . And that being said , only one gun at a time can be used at a time OldLady . And your claim that the Constitution was DESIGNED to change with the times is your OPINION OldLady .

No, it's not an opinion, Pismoe.
Article 5
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Do you believe we have inalienable rights or only the rights "bestowed" upon us by the government?

 

[Polishprince]

WHo here is going to bring a fully automatic machine gun to a football game?

No one that's who

Ergo it was a stupid example

The two guys I was speaking to in this thread both said that they feel we have the constitutional right to do being a machine gun to a school. Do you agree with that?

So no it wasn’t a stupid example it was defining the boundaries of where we draw the line in regulation. So where do you stand?

I don't care if people own machine guns

I have no problem with the owners of any property setting the rules on what is permissible on their property.

That said there is no reason to stop anyone who can legally carry a concealed weapon from doing so anywhere

Well there you ago, another who is fine with anybody taking a machine gun into schools... this is why it’s not a dumb question. It gets right to the heart of the issue and shows how far somebody will go.

To somebody like myself it is obviously dangerous and inappropriate to have guns in schools like that. I just don’t trust my fellow citizens to be cool calm and responsible all the time and I’d prefer to limit, not openly allow mass killing machines around my kids. People are over emotional idiots in general. If they want to carry they better damn well prove that they are knowledgeable in gun safety and show that they are stable/responsible people.

Well, what are you willing to do about it?

Are you ready for all government schools to follow those in Urban areas and have metal detectors and body cavity searches for the students?

I think I schools have the right to make whatever rules and policy that they see fit. Same for counties and states.

Which is it, counties or states?

In Pennsylvania, the state alone does gun control. The county of Philadelphia has been largely put in their place that they can't ban weapons like NY or Baltimore.

In the state of Washington, the Leftist rulers impose massive gun control on the whole state, even in the civilized eastern reaches of the realm.

 

[iceberg]

WHo here is going to bring a fully automatic machine gun to a football game?

No one that's who

Ergo it was a stupid example

The two guys I was speaking to in this thread both said that they feel we have the constitutional right to do being a machine gun to a school. Do you agree with that?

So no it wasn’t a stupid example it was defining the boundaries of where we draw the line in regulation. So where do you stand?

I don't care if people own machine guns

I have no problem with the owners of any property setting the rules on what is permissible on their property.

That said there is no reason to stop anyone who can legally carry a concealed weapon from doing so anywhere

Well there you ago, another who is fine with anybody taking a machine gun into schools... this is why it’s not a dumb question. It gets right to the heart of the issue and shows how far somebody will go.

To somebody like myself it is obviously dangerous and inappropriate to have guns in schools like that. I just don’t trust my fellow citizens to be cool calm and responsible all the time and I’d prefer to limit, not openly allow mass killing machines around my kids. People are over emotional idiots in general. If they want to carry they better damn well prove that they are knowledgeable in gun safety and show that they are stable/responsible people.

that isn't what he said, now is it?
he has no problem with people owning machine guns. i would disagree but his opinion, his right.
he has no problem with people who own property setting the rules for what is allowed in on it. this would include schools and the like. if you don't want guns on there you can be a gun free zone. your call has he said.

he said he feels IF YOU ARE LICENSED you should be able to carry a concealed weapon anywhere. while i could think this contradicts his previous statement of letting someone set the rules for their property - he never said a thing about carrying machine guns around schools.

last i checked, a machine gun is NOT a concealed weapon so to link that to a school is you doing it for emotional impact and misconstruing what he did in fact say, twisting it to a loose interpretation you'd not allow someone to do to you. in essence you took what he said and slammed it to an extreme "machine guns in schools" statement OF WHICH HE NEVER SAID was cool. you said it for him then went on a rant about his views you just gave him.

i'd ask why you do that but i'm more afraid you'd tell me.

You missed my original question that he was responding to. I was talking to two others yesterday (patriot and bigrebnc) and asked if they supported any citizens ability to walk into a store and buy a machine gun as easy as buying a slurpy and then take it to a high school football game and hold it as they watched. Both posters I was talking to said yes they supported it. Schools and states don’t have the right to infringe on the second amendment. Blues man called it a stupid question and we went from there.

you mean where he said "who would bring a machine gun to a football game?" and followed up with no one, it's a stupid question?

Breaking News - Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

i went back 250 posts and never saw him say it's fine to bring a machine gun to a school. please give me your direct reference.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Move to one of those countries. We won't miss you at all

That won’t fix the problem. Need to deport the gun nuts.

We don't have a problem

mass shootings account for less than 1% of all murders

Tell that to the dead people. Why does it happen weekly if we don’t have a problem? Our homicide rate is 4-5X higher than countries with strong gun control, that’s a lot of lives.

People die every day what would you say to them?

When it comes to mass shootings I’d say they are really rare when there is strong gun control. Why do you support mass killers?

"we found that about 86 percent of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones from 2009 to 2016."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...pen-in-gun-free-zones/?utm_term=.bfa951cdbf83

 

[Slade3200]

The two guys I was speaking to in this thread both said that they feel we have the constitutional right to do being a machine gun to a school. Do you agree with that?

So no it wasn’t a stupid example it was defining the boundaries of where we draw the line in regulation. So where do you stand?

I don't care if people own machine guns

I have no problem with the owners of any property setting the rules on what is permissible on their property.

That said there is no reason to stop anyone who can legally carry a concealed weapon from doing so anywhere

Well there you ago, another who is fine with anybody taking a machine gun into schools... this is why it’s not a dumb question. It gets right to the heart of the issue and shows how far somebody will go.

To somebody like myself it is obviously dangerous and inappropriate to have guns in schools like that. I just don’t trust my fellow citizens to be cool calm and responsible all the time and I’d prefer to limit, not openly allow mass killing machines around my kids. People are over emotional idiots in general. If they want to carry they better damn well prove that they are knowledgeable in gun safety and show that they are stable/responsible people.

Well, what are you willing to do about it?

Are you ready for all government schools to follow those in Urban areas and have metal detectors and body cavity searches for the students?

I think I schools have the right to make whatever rules and policy that they see fit. Same for counties and states.

Which is it, counties or states?

In Pennsylvania, the state alone does gun control. The county of Philadelphia has been largely put in their place that they can't ban weapons like NY or Baltimore.

In the state of Washington, the Leftist rulers impose massive gun control on the whole state, even in the civilized eastern reaches of the realm.

Well that depends on what is trying to be legislated. Some laws are appropriate for federal, like restrictions on automatic weapons, other rules can be handled statewide or by localities. How about you answer my question. Do you believe in a completely unrestricted 2nd amendment? So any citizen can easily buy an auto and take it to a school football game. No questions asked... do you support that?

 

[NotYourBody]

Both are effective in slaughtering first graders

Progressive government power, like what you want, has murdered over 100,000,000 people in the last 100 years.

YOUR political ideology is the most violent, vile, and murderous philosophy ever created. Our Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment so that we would be able to keep murderous swine, like you, from committing your crimes.

So lets arm crazy people & allow them to roan the streets.

No, we identify the crazy people, give them their due process, then place them where they can't hurt people.

It seems like in this country we only identify the crazy people after they've already shot up a bunch of people. Does that seem effective?

------------------------------------- think it unAmerican and unethical for 'head doktors' to go around labeling people as being Crazy isn't it 'NYBod .

We should at least try to identify the crazy people trying to buy a gun.

 

[Blues Man]

People die every day what would you say to them?

When it comes to mass shootings I’d say they are really rare when there is strong gun control. Why do you support mass killers?

I don't

Why do you want to take guns away from people who will never commit a murder?

Yes you do. You make it easy for them to arm up. Because lives are more important than a bunch of tools needing gun courage.

No I don't.

I don't sell guns to anyone.

We already have gun laws on the books to deal with illegal possession of firearms and when those laws are enforced they work

Yes you do, you make really dangerous weapons legal. Because of you the weapon used was legally purchased.

FYI an AR 15 is not "really" dangerous
In fact there are a hell of lot more things that are more dangerous than guns out there in the world.

What you people can't seem to understand is that I am not responsible for the bad acts of another person.

Maybe we should all have our drivers licenses suspended because some people drive drunk huh?

 

[Blues Man]

Next time don't use a stupid example to make your point

Well there you go again, coming up empty on making a substantive argument. Let me help. Why is my example stupid? What is false or wrong about what I said?

WHo here is going to bring a fully automatic machine gun to a football game?

No one that's who

Ergo it was a stupid example

The two guys I was speaking to in this thread both said that they feel we have the constitutional right to do being a machine gun to a school. Do you agree with that?

So no it wasn’t a stupid example it was defining the boundaries of where we draw the line in regulation. So where do you stand?

I don't care if people own machine guns

I have no problem with the owners of any property setting the rules on what is permissible on their property.

That said there is no reason to stop anyone who can legally carry a concealed weapon from doing so anywhere

Well there you ago, another who is fine with anybody taking a machine gun into schools... this is why it’s not a dumb question. It gets right to the heart of the issue and shows how far somebody will go.

To somebody like myself it is obviously dangerous and inappropriate to have guns in schools like that. I just don’t trust my fellow citizens to be cool calm and responsible all the time and I’d prefer to limit, not openly allow mass killing machines around my kids. People are over emotional idiots in general. If they want to carry they better damn well prove that they are knowledgeable in gun safety and show that they are stable/responsible people.

Where did I say that?

It's pretty tough to carry a fully automatic rifle in a concealed fashion

But if I was going to let anyone own a fully automatic rifle it would be a person with a concealed carry permit as that group of people is the most law abiding group of people in the country

 

[Blues Man]

You are absolutely correct. But that doesn’t “even” it out. A person who shoots themselves is an accident (and often times the result of supreme stupidity / irresponsibility). It’s not one-billionth as tragic as people being slaughtered simply because left-wing representatives unconstitutionally prevented their constituents from defending themselves.

Assuming that that was the reason. I would place the blame on the shooter..where it belongs. The first to act in a violent situation always has the advantage. Even if every person is armed...the shooter will still kill several..this guy..was shot in minutes..still he hit 11.

Blaming the left is absurd...I live in a Constitutional carry state....we can carry concealed without a permit. Does everyone carry/ No.Do the majority carry..no. Most of us have a gun around...in the car...in the house....maybe in the backpack. But in a mass shooting scenario....I doubt that the outcome would be anything but tragic.
At best, an armed citizenry would limit the damage..and lead to a quick resolution. But the danger of friendly fire..is there. My point? The political polemic has little to do with the real-life horror of a mass shooting..and that armed or no--people are going to die.

All deaths are tragic..to someone.

Perhaps if the Democrat party would stop demonizing guns (inanimate objects) more people would be comfortable owning, learning to shoot and would carry. We constantly hear how we should wait for law enforcement but, even where cops can get to the perp right away (as with the Garlic Festival) still people had to die and be injured. My contention is that if guns were acceptable for people to open-carry, this little punk would have been put down quickly and efficiently.

The Ar 15 just happens to be one of the most popular rifle frames in the country

There are over 8 million of them in the hands of civilians and 99.9999% of those civilian will never shoot anyone

And no it does not shoot faster than any other semiautomatic rifle

All my rifles but 1 are semiautomatic. I'm more of a hand gun person myself. I don't have as much use for rifles as some do so I only have a few but all of them are in a much larger caliber than an Ar 15.

But why don;t you answer my earlier question to you

What other of your guaranteed rights are you willing to give up to stop criminals from committing crimes?

You are looking at this all wrong. As I read it, and many others do as well, the Second Amendment is for keeping the citizenry ready to call up in case of attack. They did not have a standing army and the Founding Fathers did not want one. Even before the Revolutionary War, the local militias were called up to train on a regular basis. All adult males except the very oldest were required to participate and they needed to bring their own weapon.

We now have the largest standing army in the world. The Second Amendment no longer applies. Since it keeps standing in the way of getting rid of the majority of guns in this country, I say ditch it.

The US military is barred from acting on US soil.

And the second was not conceived for the possibility of an attack by a foreign power. It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.

So what other rights are you willing to give up to stop criminals from committing crimes>\?

How about your 4th or 5t amendment rights? I mean if you're innocent you shouldn't care if the police search your home whenever they want or if they arrest and innterrogste you for hours on end right?

It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.
Maybe they had both reasons on their minds. Considering what they had just been through with the King of England, can you blame them? That is no longer a valid argument either, though, since we would have a snowball's chance in hell of fighting the US military with our personal collections of AR's, AK's and SKS's should a despotic government try to overthrow our democracy.

That may be your opinion

But you underestimate what several million committed people can do and how much of the US military would oppose the government if it really came down to it?

I think it would be more than you do obviously.

And the second amendment even if it doesn't expressly state it is also about the right of an individual to protect his own life. The framers all thought that self preservation was such an obvious and natural right that there was no reason to codify it

Does it take 29 rifles to protect your own life? How many handguns?
LIMITING and strictly registering and vetting owners of firearms would not take away the opportunity for responsible people from bearing arms. The founders lived in a very different world, culturally and technologically. That is why the Constitution was designed to change with the times.

It doesn't matter how many guns a person owns.

People who possess and use guns legally are not the problem here.

Why do you want to make law abiding people out to be the bad guys here?

 

[Brain357]

That won’t fix the problem. Need to deport the gun nuts.

We don't have a problem

mass shootings account for less than 1% of all murders

Tell that to the dead people. Why does it happen weekly if we don’t have a problem? Our homicide rate is 4-5X higher than countries with strong gun control, that’s a lot of lives.

People die every day what would you say to them?

When it comes to mass shootings I’d say they are really rare when there is strong gun control. Why do you support mass killers?

View attachment 271948

"we found that about 86 percent of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones from 2009 to 2016."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...pen-in-gun-free-zones/?utm_term=.bfa951cdbf83

Bet they didn’t get the gun in a gun free zone did they? The problem is easy access to weapons for mass killing.

 

[Blues Man]

Perhaps if the Democrat party would stop demonizing guns (inanimate objects) more people would be comfortable owning, learning to shoot and would carry. We constantly hear how we should wait for law enforcement but, even where cops can get to the perp right away (as with the Garlic Festival) still people had to die and be injured. My contention is that if guns were acceptable for people to open-carry, this little punk would have been put down quickly and efficiently.

The US military is barred from acting on US soil.

And the second was not conceived for the possibility of an attack by a foreign power. It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.

So what other rights are you willing to give up to stop criminals from committing crimes>\?

How about your 4th or 5t amendment rights? I mean if you're innocent you shouldn't care if the police search your home whenever they want or if they arrest and innterrogste you for hours on end right?

It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.
Maybe they had both reasons on their minds. Considering what they had just been through with the King of England, can you blame them? That is no longer a valid argument either, though, since we would have a snowball's chance in hell of fighting the US military with our personal collections of AR's, AK's and SKS's should a despotic government try to overthrow our democracy.

That may be your opinion

But you underestimate what several million committed people can do and how much of the US military would oppose the government if it really came down to it?

I think it would be more than you do obviously.

And the second amendment even if it doesn't expressly state it is also about the right of an individual to protect his own life. The framers all thought that self preservation was such an obvious and natural right that there was no reason to codify it

Does it take 29 rifles to protect your own life? How many handguns?
LIMITING and strictly registering and vetting owners of firearms would not take away the opportunity for responsible people from bearing arms. The founders lived in a very different world, culturally and technologically. That is why the Constitution was designed to change with the times.

--------------------------------------------------------- in the USA you can own any number of cars , motorcycles or guns that you like . And that being said , only one gun at a time can be used at a time OldLady . And your claim that the Constitution was DESIGNED to change with the times is your OPINION OldLady .

The 2nd amendment was clearly for defending the country, not self defense. Militias aren’t for self defense. Now that we have the worlds strongest military, the 2nd has no point.

and the fact that a person has the absolute right to defend his life was so obvious that the founders didn't think it needed to be codified

I guess they couldn't imagine a person could ever think otherwise

 

[Brain357]

When it comes to mass shootings I’d say they are really rare when there is strong gun control. Why do you support mass killers?

I don't

Why do you want to take guns away from people who will never commit a murder?

Yes you do. You make it easy for them to arm up. Because lives are more important than a bunch of tools needing gun courage.

No I don't.

I don't sell guns to anyone.

We already have gun laws on the books to deal with illegal possession of firearms and when those laws are enforced they work

Yes you do, you make really dangerous weapons legal. Because of you the weapon used was legally purchased.

FYI an AR 15 is not "really" dangerous
In fact there are a hell of lot more things that are more dangerous than guns out there in the world.

What you people can't seem to understand is that I am not responsible for the bad acts of another person.

Maybe we should all have our drivers licenses suspended because some people drive drunk huh?

And yet they have been used to kill over 50 people really quickly by one shooter . Seems dangerous to me.

 

[Blues Man]

I don't

Why do you want to take guns away from people who will never commit a murder?

Yes you do. You make it easy for them to arm up. Because lives are more important than a bunch of tools needing gun courage.

No I don't.

I don't sell guns to anyone.

We already have gun laws on the books to deal with illegal possession of firearms and when those laws are enforced they work

Yes you do, you make really dangerous weapons legal. Because of you the weapon used was legally purchased.

FYI an AR 15 is not "really" dangerous
In fact there are a hell of lot more things that are more dangerous than guns out there in the world.

What you people can't seem to understand is that I am not responsible for the bad acts of another person.

Maybe we should all have our drivers licenses suspended because some people drive drunk huh?

And yet they have been used to kill over 50 people really quickly by one shooter . Seems dangerous to me.

So?

Anyone could do the same thing with a really big truck and a snow plow

And it's not the gun that is dangerous it's the person shooting it that is the danger

 

[Defiant1]

We don't have a problem

mass shootings account for less than 1% of all murders

Tell that to the dead people. Why does it happen weekly if we don’t have a problem? Our homicide rate is 4-5X higher than countries with strong gun control, that’s a lot of lives.

People die every day what would you say to them?

When it comes to mass shootings I’d say they are really rare when there is strong gun control. Why do you support mass killers?

View attachment 271948

"we found that about 86 percent of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones from 2009 to 2016."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...pen-in-gun-free-zones/?utm_term=.bfa951cdbf83

Bet they didn’t get the gun in a gun free zone did they? The problem is easy access to weapons for mass killing.

What is your criteria for defining a "problem?"

 

[Slade3200]

The two guys I was speaking to in this thread both said that they feel we have the constitutional right to do being a machine gun to a school. Do you agree with that?

So no it wasn’t a stupid example it was defining the boundaries of where we draw the line in regulation. So where do you stand?

I don't care if people own machine guns

I have no problem with the owners of any property setting the rules on what is permissible on their property.

That said there is no reason to stop anyone who can legally carry a concealed weapon from doing so anywhere

Well there you ago, another who is fine with anybody taking a machine gun into schools... this is why it’s not a dumb question. It gets right to the heart of the issue and shows how far somebody will go.

To somebody like myself it is obviously dangerous and inappropriate to have guns in schools like that. I just don’t trust my fellow citizens to be cool calm and responsible all the time and I’d prefer to limit, not openly allow mass killing machines around my kids. People are over emotional idiots in general. If they want to carry they better damn well prove that they are knowledgeable in gun safety and show that they are stable/responsible people.

that isn't what he said, now is it?
he has no problem with people owning machine guns. i would disagree but his opinion, his right.
he has no problem with people who own property setting the rules for what is allowed in on it. this would include schools and the like. if you don't want guns on there you can be a gun free zone. your call has he said.

he said he feels IF YOU ARE LICENSED you should be able to carry a concealed weapon anywhere. while i could think this contradicts his previous statement of letting someone set the rules for their property - he never said a thing about carrying machine guns around schools.

last i checked, a machine gun is NOT a concealed weapon so to link that to a school is you doing it for emotional impact and misconstruing what he did in fact say, twisting it to a loose interpretation you'd not allow someone to do to you. in essence you took what he said and slammed it to an extreme "machine guns in schools" statement OF WHICH HE NEVER SAID was cool. you said it for him then went on a rant about his views you just gave him.

i'd ask why you do that but i'm more afraid you'd tell me.

You missed my original question that he was responding to. I was talking to two others yesterday (patriot and bigrebnc) and asked if they supported any citizens ability to walk into a store and buy a machine gun as easy as buying a slurpy and then take it to a high school football game and hold it as they watched. Both posters I was talking to said yes they supported it. Schools and states don’t have the right to infringe on the second amendment. Blues man called it a stupid question and we went from there.

you mean where he said "who would bring a machine gun to a football game?" and followed up with no one, it's a stupid question?

Breaking News - Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

i went back 250 posts and never saw him say it's fine to bring a machine gun to a school. please give me your direct reference.

I had two posters literally say bring guns into schools. And then blues guy calls it a stupid question and when pressed responds with this...
“I don't care if people own machine guns

I have no problem with the owners of any property setting the rules on what is permissible on their property.

That said there is no reason to stop anyone who can legally carry a concealed weapon from doing so anywhere”

You are right he never said the words “bring guns into school”... he played around giving a direct answer so I shot back... I’ll take back my comment and ask him to further clarify if he believes the second amendment can and should be restricted by federal, state and or local laws or should it not. If not then legally anybody would be able to buy and bring a gun into a school. If so then he believes we can regulate it

 

[Brain357]

It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.
Maybe they had both reasons on their minds. Considering what they had just been through with the King of England, can you blame them? That is no longer a valid argument either, though, since we would have a snowball's chance in hell of fighting the US military with our personal collections of AR's, AK's and SKS's should a despotic government try to overthrow our democracy.

That may be your opinion

But you underestimate what several million committed people can do and how much of the US military would oppose the government if it really came down to it?

I think it would be more than you do obviously.

And the second amendment even if it doesn't expressly state it is also about the right of an individual to protect his own life. The framers all thought that self preservation was such an obvious and natural right that there was no reason to codify it

Does it take 29 rifles to protect your own life? How many handguns?
LIMITING and strictly registering and vetting owners of firearms would not take away the opportunity for responsible people from bearing arms. The founders lived in a very different world, culturally and technologically. That is why the Constitution was designed to change with the times.

--------------------------------------------------------- in the USA you can own any number of cars , motorcycles or guns that you like . And that being said , only one gun at a time can be used at a time OldLady . And your claim that the Constitution was DESIGNED to change with the times is your OPINION OldLady .

The 2nd amendment was clearly for defending the country, not self defense. Militias aren’t for self defense. Now that we have the worlds strongest military, the 2nd has no point.

and the fact that a person has the absolute right to defend his life was so obvious that the founders didn't think it needed to be codified

I guess they couldn't imagine a person could ever think otherwise

I’m getting pretty old and have never needed a gun for defense, nor do I know anyone who has. A life seems well defended without guns. And since countries with strong gun control have homicide rates a fraction of ours, much better defended with fewer guns.

And they didn’t think they had to point out weapons for mass killing should be illegal. That’s common sense.

 

[Brain357]

Tell that to the dead people. Why does it happen weekly if we don’t have a problem? Our homicide rate is 4-5X higher than countries with strong gun control, that’s a lot of lives.

People die every day what would you say to them?

When it comes to mass shootings I’d say they are really rare when there is strong gun control. Why do you support mass killers?

View attachment 271948

"we found that about 86 percent of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones from 2009 to 2016."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...pen-in-gun-free-zones/?utm_term=.bfa951cdbf83

Bet they didn’t get the gun in a gun free zone did they? The problem is easy access to weapons for mass killing.

What is your criteria for defining a "problem?"

People dying regularly, something that doesn’t happen in other countries.

 

[Slade3200]

Well there you go again, coming up empty on making a substantive argument. Let me help. Why is my example stupid? What is false or wrong about what I said?

WHo here is going to bring a fully automatic machine gun to a football game?

No one that's who

Ergo it was a stupid example

The two guys I was speaking to in this thread both said that they feel we have the constitutional right to do being a machine gun to a school. Do you agree with that?

So no it wasn’t a stupid example it was defining the boundaries of where we draw the line in regulation. So where do you stand?

I don't care if people own machine guns

I have no problem with the owners of any property setting the rules on what is permissible on their property.

That said there is no reason to stop anyone who can legally carry a concealed weapon from doing so anywhere

Well there you ago, another who is fine with anybody taking a machine gun into schools... this is why it’s not a dumb question. It gets right to the heart of the issue and shows how far somebody will go.

To somebody like myself it is obviously dangerous and inappropriate to have guns in schools like that. I just don’t trust my fellow citizens to be cool calm and responsible all the time and I’d prefer to limit, not openly allow mass killing machines around my kids. People are over emotional idiots in general. If they want to carry they better damn well prove that they are knowledgeable in gun safety and show that they are stable/responsible people.

Where did I say that?

It's pretty tough to carry a fully automatic rifle in a concealed fashion

But if I was going to let anyone own a fully automatic rifle it would be a person with a concealed carry permit as that group of people is the most law abiding group of people in the country

Where in the constitution does it say concealed? It does say shall not be infringed. Are you supporting conceal laws and regulations on firearms? If so then I apologize for mischaracterizing your statement

 

[Defiant1]

Progressive government power, like what you want, has murdered over 100,000,000 people in the last 100 years.

YOUR political ideology is the most violent, vile, and murderous philosophy ever created. Our Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment so that we would be able to keep murderous swine, like you, from committing your crimes.

So lets arm crazy people & allow them to roan the streets.

No, we identify the crazy people, give them their due process, then place them where they can't hurt people.

It seems like in this country we only identify the crazy people after they've already shot up a bunch of people. Does that seem effective?

------------------------------------- think it unAmerican and unethical for 'head doktors' to go around labeling people as being Crazy isn't it 'NYBod .

We should at least try to identify the crazy people trying to buy a gun.

You don't think that is being done now?
Have you ever seen the NICS form?
What would you do different?

 

[Brain357]

Yes you do. You make it easy for them to arm up. Because lives are more important than a bunch of tools needing gun courage.

No I don't.

I don't sell guns to anyone.

We already have gun laws on the books to deal with illegal possession of firearms and when those laws are enforced they work

Yes you do, you make really dangerous weapons legal. Because of you the weapon used was legally purchased.

FYI an AR 15 is not "really" dangerous
In fact there are a hell of lot more things that are more dangerous than guns out there in the world.

What you people can't seem to understand is that I am not responsible for the bad acts of another person.

Maybe we should all have our drivers licenses suspended because some people drive drunk huh?

And yet they have been used to kill over 50 people really quickly by one shooter . Seems dangerous to me.

So?

Anyone could do the same thing with a really big truck and a snow plow

And it's not the gun that is dangerous it's the person shooting it that is the danger

I feel pretty safe from trucks on the 3rd floor of this building. They put up barriers and close roads to take care of that problem.