The only gun control needed.

[jillian]

332-206. Success.

One second? Hardly

And the guy being filmed is likely highly trained or even an expert with nobody yelling at him, shooting back or distracting him.

Now imagine the 100+ rounds Adam Lanza squeezed off except add in
20 periods of down time of 2-3 seconds (-although we all know it would be much longer). That is 40-60 seconds to get away.

You can run several hundred yards in that time

You can also return fire or tackle the gunman.

The lone downside is inconvenience to some folks.

Lanza was a retard. People who plan such things have already practiced their moves just like that guy in the video.

Maybe so, maybe no. You're speaking from ignorance. But I doubt having to carry a gym bag of 20-30 extra mags or clips or whatever on your person will help your reload speed any. If you have high capacity mags, you needn't worry. If you don't, you have to lug around a bunch of smaller capacity mags, reload every 5 rounds or so. Huge game changer.

Furthermore is the fact the suspect is prepared for commotion unlike the victims who were not anticipating an attack.

I Seriously doubt he's prepared for the bedlam of 100 screaming people, water sprinklers going off (as they did in SB), overturned tables and chairs and getting wounded or tackled.

You can return fire? Who? How? In your world, nobody has a gun except the police and the criminals. In our world, yes, there would be no restrictions on legal gun carriers and they might be able to minimize the tragedy by shooting the suspect.

That's the point here.

False statement. We have this idiotic second amendment that douche bags like you feel is somehow a Jeffersonian ouiji board type of fortelling of a battle between the government and yourselves and you've gotta be ready for it. So this means carrying your gun everywhere you go. And, in true douche nozzle form, the folks who should know better have taken up your laughable positions and passed laws so you can carry your guns into Twin Peaks, Chuckee Cheese, and other outlets of tyrrany.

In the cases of large numbers of people gathering who shouldn't be armed, like schools, I fully support having armed guards at the campuses, on the buses, and at any school function.

[
I'm also at odds with my liberal friends about having security guards at schools. I mean, if you're going to call a cop to come and take care of an active shooter, wouldn't having an armed security guard on the premises make more sense?

We live in the same world douchebag. The difference is that I recognize we need to address the near monthly bloodbaths and you just want to erect barriers to prevent any such remedy.

"idiotic second amendment" This statement brought to you by the 1st Amendment.

And?

As far as I know, they (the framers) were the smartest people of their time. However, no group of people, regardless of motives, education, or luck can foresee the societal, technological, or international threat changes wrought in the ensuing 237 years. It's not their fault but they missed on this one.
In the prism of 1789 when there were few police forces, a paltry standing army, and little organization between the state militia's to provide for a common defense, it made sense to have weaponry available to citizenry since sharks were circling the fledgling nation. In the 2016 prism, it's ridiculous. They were equally worried about opposition armies forcing you to house their soldiers....is that a clue as to the mindset of the framers?

The framers didn't miss a beat. Of course they expected firearms to be more advanced as the years passed. They knew that society might change entirely. That's why they included an amendment process in our Constitution. Of course there would have to be a strong consensus for it to change, but they didn't want to see such changes in our Constitution based on a simple majority of opinion one way or the other.

lol..

until scalia, no one ever believed that the 2nd created a private right of gun ownership. it was for the purpose of a "well regulated militia" to DEFEND the U.S. since there was no standing army at the time. that's why it was balanced by inclusion of "treason" as the only crime set out in the constitution.

as for them not wanting the winds of change to take away rights, that's true.... that's why the torch and pitchfork crowd isn't going to be allowed to do things like deport muslims or shut down mosques. (although there is that nasty little matter of korematsu still being good law).

 

[iolo]

Lock up the NRA leadership - that should help hugely.

 

[candycorn]

So if a mass murderer kills 13 people instead of 14, that makes it better?

If you our your 10 year old daughter are the 14th person...you tell me.
Obviously fewer deaths are preferable to more deaths.

I carry a high capacity magazine when I'm armed. Why? Because experience tells me that you don't hit your target all the time. The farther away you are, the less likely you are to hit your target, and two, you may be defending yourself from several attackers instead of one. There have been people that been shot with several bullets and continued their attack. The police officer in Philadelphia is a prime example. He was shot three times, ran after the shooter and apprehended him. Do you think police should have limited magazines too?

No. Police should have access to superior firepower in my view. I don't get bent out of shape when I see the tactical vehicles deployed like some liberals do either so save your argument.

When you take firearms training, you are taught that shooting at cardboard is much different than shooting at another human being who is shooting back. There is no real training for how to react to that so you just do the best you can with the information you were given.

Funny,earlier you were saying that Rampage killers were prepared. Now it's "no real training".

You stated:

Furthermore is the fact the suspect is prepared for commotion unlike the victims who were not anticipating an attack.

Obviously, when you add that factor of resistance environmentally, mentally, or in terms of ballistics into the mix, the time it takes to change magazines will lengthen considerably. Don't pretend otherwise.

It's the same way for police officers. Nobody is trained with live human beings shooting at them. The best you can do is prepare.

Which is why I trust a cop whose minutes away much more than some armed, untrained yahoo who happens to be closer by. The cop's job is to prepare.

That being said, with the 2nd Amendment and it's fortified place in the culture, I accept that there will be people close by who are likely carrying firearms. Do I trust them? No. I think they are almost as big a threat as the original assailant like this dope from the Twin Peaks video 32 second mark.



Still, let's say Adam Lanza was on the receiving end of that shot being fired wildy in his direction. That'll give you a second or two to pause and probably duck behind something instead of continuing your rampage. So net benefit perhaps (unless the wildly fired round hit someone).

 

[candycorn]

332-206. Success.

One second? Hardly

And the guy being filmed is likely highly trained or even an expert with nobody yelling at him, shooting back or distracting him.

Now imagine the 100+ rounds Adam Lanza squeezed off except add in
20 periods of down time of 2-3 seconds (-although we all know it would be much longer). That is 40-60 seconds to get away.

You can run several hundred yards in that time

You can also return fire or tackle the gunman.

The lone downside is inconvenience to some folks.

Lanza was a retard. People who plan such things have already practiced their moves just like that guy in the video.

Maybe so, maybe no. You're speaking from ignorance. But I doubt having to carry a gym bag of 20-30 extra mags or clips or whatever on your person will help your reload speed any. If you have high capacity mags, you needn't worry. If you don't, you have to lug around a bunch of smaller capacity mags, reload every 5 rounds or so. Huge game changer.

Furthermore is the fact the suspect is prepared for commotion unlike the victims who were not anticipating an attack.

I Seriously doubt he's prepared for the bedlam of 100 screaming people, water sprinklers going off (as they did in SB), overturned tables and chairs and getting wounded or tackled.

You can return fire? Who? How? In your world, nobody has a gun except the police and the criminals. In our world, yes, there would be no restrictions on legal gun carriers and they might be able to minimize the tragedy by shooting the suspect.

That's the point here.

False statement. We have this idiotic second amendment that douche bags like you feel is somehow a Jeffersonian ouiji board type of fortelling of a battle between the government and yourselves and you've gotta be ready for it. So this means carrying your gun everywhere you go. And, in true douche nozzle form, the folks who should know better have taken up your laughable positions and passed laws so you can carry your guns into Twin Peaks, Chuckee Cheese, and other outlets of tyrrany.

In the cases of large numbers of people gathering who shouldn't be armed, like schools, I fully support having armed guards at the campuses, on the buses, and at any school function.

[
I'm also at odds with my liberal friends about having security guards at schools. I mean, if you're going to call a cop to come and take care of an active shooter, wouldn't having an armed security guard on the premises make more sense?

We live in the same world douchebag. The difference is that I recognize we need to address the near monthly bloodbaths and you just want to erect barriers to prevent any such remedy.

"idiotic second amendment" This statement brought to you by the 1st Amendment.

And?

As far as I know, they (the framers) were the smartest people of their time. However, no group of people, regardless of motives, education, or luck can foresee the societal, technological, or international threat changes wrought in the ensuing 237 years. It's not their fault but they missed on this one.
In the prism of 1789 when there were few police forces, a paltry standing army, and little organization between the state militia's to provide for a common defense, it made sense to have weaponry available to citizenry since sharks were circling the fledgling nation. In the 2016 prism, it's ridiculous. They were equally worried about opposition armies forcing you to house their soldiers....is that a clue as to the mindset of the framers?

The framers didn't miss a beat. Of course they expected firearms to be more advanced as the years passed. They knew that society might change entirely. That's why they included an amendment process in our Constitution. Of course there would have to be a strong consensus for it to change, but they didn't want to see such changes in our Constitution based on a simple majority of opinion one way or the other.

Oh please...

The 3rd Amendment is totally irrelevant and it was thought of (at the time) to be important enough to be in the bill of rights???

Adding an amendment process is required in every agreement; there was no brilliance exhibited by that. Frankly, they made it too easy as was illustrated by prohibition and the repeal of it 11 years later.

 

[billyerock1991]

Lanza was a retard. People who plan such things have already practiced their moves just like that guy in the video.

Maybe so, maybe no. You're speaking from ignorance. But I doubt having to carry a gym bag of 20-30 extra mags or clips or whatever on your person will help your reload speed any. If you have high capacity mags, you needn't worry. If you don't, you have to lug around a bunch of smaller capacity mags, reload every 5 rounds or so. Huge game changer.

Furthermore is the fact the suspect is prepared for commotion unlike the victims who were not anticipating an attack.

I Seriously doubt he's prepared for the bedlam of 100 screaming people, water sprinklers going off (as they did in SB), overturned tables and chairs and getting wounded or tackled.

You can return fire? Who? How? In your world, nobody has a gun except the police and the criminals. In our world, yes, there would be no restrictions on legal gun carriers and they might be able to minimize the tragedy by shooting the suspect.

That's the point here.

False statement. We have this idiotic second amendment that douche bags like you feel is somehow a Jeffersonian ouiji board type of fortelling of a battle between the government and yourselves and you've gotta be ready for it. So this means carrying your gun everywhere you go. And, in true douche nozzle form, the folks who should know better have taken up your laughable positions and passed laws so you can carry your guns into Twin Peaks, Chuckee Cheese, and other outlets of tyrrany.

In the cases of large numbers of people gathering who shouldn't be armed, like schools, I fully support having armed guards at the campuses, on the buses, and at any school function.

[
I'm also at odds with my liberal friends about having security guards at schools. I mean, if you're going to call a cop to come and take care of an active shooter, wouldn't having an armed security guard on the premises make more sense?

We live in the same world douchebag. The difference is that I recognize we need to address the near monthly bloodbaths and you just want to erect barriers to prevent any such remedy.

"idiotic second amendment" This statement brought to you by the 1st Amendment.

And?

As far as I know, they (the framers) were the smartest people of their time. However, no group of people, regardless of motives, education, or luck can foresee the societal, technological, or international threat changes wrought in the ensuing 237 years. It's not their fault but they missed on this one.
In the prism of 1789 when there were few police forces, a paltry standing army, and little organization between the state militia's to provide for a common defense, it made sense to have weaponry available to citizenry since sharks were circling the fledgling nation. In the 2016 prism, it's ridiculous. They were equally worried about opposition armies forcing you to house their soldiers....is that a clue as to the mindset of the framers?

The framers didn't miss a beat. Of course they expected firearms to be more advanced as the years passed. They knew that society might change entirely. That's why they included an amendment process in our Constitution. Of course there would have to be a strong consensus for it to change, but they didn't want to see such changes in our Constitution based on a simple majority of opinion one way or the other.

lol..

until scalia, no one ever believed that the 2nd created a private right of gun ownership. it was for the purpose of a "well regulated militia" to DEFEND the U.S. since there was no standing army at the time. that's why it was balanced by inclusion of "treason" as the only crime set out in the constitution.

as for them not wanting the winds of change to take away rights, that's true.... that's why the torch and pitchfork crowd isn't going to be allowed to do things like deport muslims or shut down mosques. (although there is that nasty little matter of korematsu still being good law).

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Lanza was a retard. People who plan such things have already practiced their moves just like that guy in the video.

Maybe so, maybe no. You're speaking from ignorance. But I doubt having to carry a gym bag of 20-30 extra mags or clips or whatever on your person will help your reload speed any. If you have high capacity mags, you needn't worry. If you don't, you have to lug around a bunch of smaller capacity mags, reload every 5 rounds or so. Huge game changer.

Furthermore is the fact the suspect is prepared for commotion unlike the victims who were not anticipating an attack.

I Seriously doubt he's prepared for the bedlam of 100 screaming people, water sprinklers going off (as they did in SB), overturned tables and chairs and getting wounded or tackled.

You can return fire? Who? How? In your world, nobody has a gun except the police and the criminals. In our world, yes, there would be no restrictions on legal gun carriers and they might be able to minimize the tragedy by shooting the suspect.

That's the point here.

False statement. We have this idiotic second amendment that douche bags like you feel is somehow a Jeffersonian ouiji board type of fortelling of a battle between the government and yourselves and you've gotta be ready for it. So this means carrying your gun everywhere you go. And, in true douche nozzle form, the folks who should know better have taken up your laughable positions and passed laws so you can carry your guns into Twin Peaks, Chuckee Cheese, and other outlets of tyrrany.

In the cases of large numbers of people gathering who shouldn't be armed, like schools, I fully support having armed guards at the campuses, on the buses, and at any school function.

[
I'm also at odds with my liberal friends about having security guards at schools. I mean, if you're going to call a cop to come and take care of an active shooter, wouldn't having an armed security guard on the premises make more sense?

We live in the same world douchebag. The difference is that I recognize we need to address the near monthly bloodbaths and you just want to erect barriers to prevent any such remedy.

"idiotic second amendment" This statement brought to you by the 1st Amendment.

And?

As far as I know, they (the framers) were the smartest people of their time. However, no group of people, regardless of motives, education, or luck can foresee the societal, technological, or international threat changes wrought in the ensuing 237 years. It's not their fault but they missed on this one.
In the prism of 1789 when there were few police forces, a paltry standing army, and little organization between the state militia's to provide for a common defense, it made sense to have weaponry available to citizenry since sharks were circling the fledgling nation. In the 2016 prism, it's ridiculous. They were equally worried about opposition armies forcing you to house their soldiers....is that a clue as to the mindset of the framers?

The framers didn't miss a beat. Of course they expected firearms to be more advanced as the years passed. They knew that society might change entirely. That's why they included an amendment process in our Constitution. Of course there would have to be a strong consensus for it to change, but they didn't want to see such changes in our Constitution based on a simple majority of opinion one way or the other.

Oh please...

The 3rd Amendment is totally irrelevant and it was thought of (at the time) to be important enough to be in the bill of rights???

Adding an amendment process is required in every agreement; there was no brilliance exhibited by that. Frankly, they made it too easy as was illustrated by prohibition and the repeal of it 11 years later.

Well if it's so easy, then the solution to your problem is already there: amend the Constitution.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Actually less than one second if you watched my video. Even in a stressful situation it should take less than four seconds to drop and reinstall another magazine.

Saying smaller magazines would make less of a mass murder is like saying reducing the weight of a truck by 1,000 lbs would make an accident better.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intention, not by results."
Rush Limbaugh

332-206. Success.

One second? Hardly

And the guy being filmed is likely highly trained or even an expert with nobody yelling at him, shooting back or distracting him.

Now imagine the 100+ rounds Adam Lanza squeezed off except add in
20 periods of down time of 2-3 seconds (-although we all know it would be much longer). That is 40-60 seconds to get away.

You can run several hundred yards in that time

You can also return fire or tackle the gunman.

The lone downside is inconvenience to some folks.

Lanza was a retard. People who plan such things have already practiced their moves just like that guy in the video.

Maybe so, maybe no. You're speaking from ignorance. But I doubt having to carry a gym bag of 20-30 extra mags or clips or whatever on your person will help your reload speed any. If you have high capacity mags, you needn't worry. If you don't, you have to lug around a bunch of smaller capacity mags, reload every 5 rounds or so. Huge game changer.

Furthermore is the fact the suspect is prepared for commotion unlike the victims who were not anticipating an attack.

I Seriously doubt he's prepared for the bedlam of 100 screaming people, water sprinklers going off (as they did in SB), overturned tables and chairs and getting wounded or tackled.

You can return fire? Who? How? In your world, nobody has a gun except the police and the criminals. In our world, yes, there would be no restrictions on legal gun carriers and they might be able to minimize the tragedy by shooting the suspect.

That's the point here.

False statement. We have this idiotic second amendment that douche bags like you feel is somehow a Jeffersonian ouiji board type of fortelling of a battle between the government and yourselves and you've gotta be ready for it. So this means carrying your gun everywhere you go. And, in true douche nozzle form, the folks who should know better have taken up your laughable positions and passed laws so you can carry your guns into Twin Peaks, Chuckee Cheese, and other outlets of tyrrany.

In the cases of large numbers of people gathering who shouldn't be armed, like schools, I fully support having armed guards at the campuses, on the buses, and at any school function.

[
I'm also at odds with my liberal friends about having security guards at schools. I mean, if you're going to call a cop to come and take care of an active shooter, wouldn't having an armed security guard on the premises make more sense?

We live in the same world douchebag. The difference is that I recognize we need to address the near monthly bloodbaths and you just want to erect barriers to prevent any such remedy.

I'm speaking from ignorance?

Yes,you are.

You probably never shot a gun in your life yet alone go through training and licensing.

That you have allows you to be put in the mindset of a rampage killer? I played guitar for several years...would I have the first clue of what it's like to be Dave Grohl or Mark Knopfler? Not at all.

Plus you think that by making larger magazines illegal, that would stop a criminal from getting them. Yeah, just like it stopped them from getting a gun in the first place.
The Colorado shooter got much of his stuff from the internet.

Well, we were talking about Adam Lanza who used his mom's arsenal to murder 26 people. She's been called a responsible gun owner here several times.... She wouldn't have the larger magazines now would she?

Yes, our wonderful Constitution did give us the right to protect ourselves from criminals and government by allowing citizens to be armed. But with that right comes responsibility, just like the responsibility you have drinking alcohol, driving an automobile, paying your credit bills, raising children. Not all people that are supposed to be responsible will be, so you can't make laws against everything in life that requires responsibility.

Agreed. But what you can do as a society is take common sense approaches to situations that our founding fathers could not have foreseen. Such as liability insurance for automobiles being mandated in most if not all states. Such as not allowing John Q. Public to purchase Atomic weapons.

If you're having 10,000 people killed every year by someone else with a gun, taking some measure to reduce that number would seem to be the responsible thing to do.

We put seat belts in cars when deaths became alarmingly high. When we found out asbestos was bad for you we, outlawed it in new constructions. When we have dry weather, we issue "burn bands".

And those "bloodbaths" are not how we see most people die from firearms in this country. It's those individual shootings that take place in cities like Chicago, Detroit, and even right here in my town of Cleveland. The mass shootings are sensationalized by the media and get the most attention. Here, we have so many shootings sometimes it doesn't even make the news.

You're right about that. I fail to see how limiting a size of a magazine to 5 will result in more deaths since (if it is two gangs and thus two criminal enterprises) both would avail themselves of larger magazines.

Your opinion about "common sense" gun laws doesn't stand up after the "idiotic 2nd Amendment" statement

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So if a mass murderer kills 13 people instead of 14, that makes it better?

If you our your 10 year old daughter are the 14th person...you tell me.
Obviously fewer deaths are preferable to more deaths.

I carry a high capacity magazine when I'm armed. Why? Because experience tells me that you don't hit your target all the time. The farther away you are, the less likely you are to hit your target, and two, you may be defending yourself from several attackers instead of one. There have been people that been shot with several bullets and continued their attack. The police officer in Philadelphia is a prime example. He was shot three times, ran after the shooter and apprehended him. Do you think police should have limited magazines too?

No. Police should have access to superior firepower in my view. I don't get bent out of shape when I see the tactical vehicles deployed like some liberals do either so save your argument.

When you take firearms training, you are taught that shooting at cardboard is much different than shooting at another human being who is shooting back. There is no real training for how to react to that so you just do the best you can with the information you were given.

Funny,earlier you were saying that Rampage killers were prepared. Now it's "no real training".

You stated:

Furthermore is the fact the suspect is prepared for commotion unlike the victims who were not anticipating an attack.

Obviously, when you add that factor of resistance environmentally, mentally, or in terms of ballistics into the mix, the time it takes to change magazines will lengthen considerably. Don't pretend otherwise.

It's the same way for police officers. Nobody is trained with live human beings shooting at them. The best you can do is prepare.

Which is why I trust a cop whose minutes away much more than some armed, untrained yahoo who happens to be closer by. The cop's job is to prepare.

That being said, with the 2nd Amendment and it's fortified place in the culture, I accept that there will be people close by who are likely carrying firearms. Do I trust them? No. I think they are almost as big a threat as the original assailant like this dope from the Twin Peaks video 32 second mark.



Still, let's say Adam Lanza was on the receiving end of that shot being fired wildy in his direction. That'll give you a second or two to pause and probably duck behind something instead of continuing your rampage. So net benefit perhaps (unless the wildly fired round hit someone).

No, because most of these clowns are suicidal. They know they are going to die and likely by their own hands. It's one of the reasons they choose gun free zones. They don't want to be hit and injured. They don't want to serve any time in jail. They want to kill as many people as they can, and then kill themselves.

Also, what you said is that a few seconds to change magazines makes a real difference but waiting for police for a couple of minutes won't?

What I said earlier is that the attacker is prepared for all the commotion. I stand by that, but that doesn't mean the attacker is prepared to have a gun fight with another person. Apples and oranges. Unless you are a war veteran who was shot at during battle, nobody has the hands-on training to battle an attacker with a gun. You have training, instruction, practice, and that's the best that anybody can do including police officers. And even with all their training, police make mistakes as well. Right now we are going through a period of anger because of the police shooting of a 12 year old boy who pulled out a realistic looking gun in front of the officer.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Lanza was a retard. People who plan such things have already practiced their moves just like that guy in the video.

Maybe so, maybe no. You're speaking from ignorance. But I doubt having to carry a gym bag of 20-30 extra mags or clips or whatever on your person will help your reload speed any. If you have high capacity mags, you needn't worry. If you don't, you have to lug around a bunch of smaller capacity mags, reload every 5 rounds or so. Huge game changer.

Furthermore is the fact the suspect is prepared for commotion unlike the victims who were not anticipating an attack.

I Seriously doubt he's prepared for the bedlam of 100 screaming people, water sprinklers going off (as they did in SB), overturned tables and chairs and getting wounded or tackled.

You can return fire? Who? How? In your world, nobody has a gun except the police and the criminals. In our world, yes, there would be no restrictions on legal gun carriers and they might be able to minimize the tragedy by shooting the suspect.

That's the point here.

False statement. We have this idiotic second amendment that douche bags like you feel is somehow a Jeffersonian ouiji board type of fortelling of a battle between the government and yourselves and you've gotta be ready for it. So this means carrying your gun everywhere you go. And, in true douche nozzle form, the folks who should know better have taken up your laughable positions and passed laws so you can carry your guns into Twin Peaks, Chuckee Cheese, and other outlets of tyrrany.

In the cases of large numbers of people gathering who shouldn't be armed, like schools, I fully support having armed guards at the campuses, on the buses, and at any school function.

[
I'm also at odds with my liberal friends about having security guards at schools. I mean, if you're going to call a cop to come and take care of an active shooter, wouldn't having an armed security guard on the premises make more sense?

We live in the same world douchebag. The difference is that I recognize we need to address the near monthly bloodbaths and you just want to erect barriers to prevent any such remedy.

"idiotic second amendment" This statement brought to you by the 1st Amendment.

And?

As far as I know, they (the framers) were the smartest people of their time. However, no group of people, regardless of motives, education, or luck can foresee the societal, technological, or international threat changes wrought in the ensuing 237 years. It's not their fault but they missed on this one.
In the prism of 1789 when there were few police forces, a paltry standing army, and little organization between the state militia's to provide for a common defense, it made sense to have weaponry available to citizenry since sharks were circling the fledgling nation. In the 2016 prism, it's ridiculous. They were equally worried about opposition armies forcing you to house their soldiers....is that a clue as to the mindset of the framers?

The framers didn't miss a beat. Of course they expected firearms to be more advanced as the years passed. They knew that society might change entirely. That's why they included an amendment process in our Constitution. Of course there would have to be a strong consensus for it to change, but they didn't want to see such changes in our Constitution based on a simple majority of opinion one way or the other.

lol..

until scalia, no one ever believed that the 2nd created a private right of gun ownership. it was for the purpose of a "well regulated militia" to DEFEND the U.S. since there was no standing army at the time. that's why it was balanced by inclusion of "treason" as the only crime set out in the constitution.

as for them not wanting the winds of change to take away rights, that's true.... that's why the torch and pitchfork crowd isn't going to be allowed to do things like deport muslims or shut down mosques. (although there is that nasty little matter of korematsu still being good law).

That may be true and it probably won't happen. And just what is a well regulated militia? It's people being regulated by the state since that's who was in charge of such militias. For the most part, states do have regulations on firearms and each one may differ. If firearm ownership were exclusive to the state and militia only, it would have been written that way.

Remember the Constitution is not regulation on the citizen, the Constitution is regulation on the government.

 

[MisterBeale]

And if you don't think our government is at war with us, then don't you let me ever catch you posting in any of the BLM threads.

The Police Are Still Out of Control

What are BLM threads. And no, I don't think your govt is at war with you. The problem with the US govt is the type of system you have. It's not that great.

FBI: New Black Panther leader inciting violence in Ferguson
FBI: New Black Panther leader inciting violence in Ferguson
As we reported in May 2012, King Samir Shabazz, the National Field Marshal for the New Black Panther Party, called for violence against white people on his national radio program. A month later, a New Black Panther Party leader using the name "General Taco" said members of the New Black Panther Party will hunt down and kill white people.


Media fail to identify leader of Baltimore riots
Ex-New Black Panther chairman a notorious racist
Media fail to identify leader of Baltimore riots
The AP reported: “One of the protest’s organizers, Malik Shabazz, the president of Black Lawyers for Justice, said the crowd exceeded their expectations, adding that protesters’ anger is not surprising.


“‘This is a problem that has not been solved,’ he said. ‘When there’s no justice, they tend to want to take matters into their own hands.’”

“BALTIMORE MAYOR GAVE RIOTERS ‘SPACE TO DESTROY'”

The odd tactic of giving Baltimore protesters ‘space’ to destroy property

“BALTIMORE MAYOR GAVE RIOTERS ‘SPACE TO DESTROY'”

Pay No Attention to Obama Marching With the New Black Panthers
Katie Pavlich - Pay No Attention to Obama Marching With the New Black Panthers
Justice Department whistleblower J. Christian Adams has even more substantial, clear photos of Obama marching with the Black Panthers in his new book Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department.

Among those appearing with Obama was Shabazz, the Panther leader who was one of the defendants in the voter intimidation case that Attorney General Eric Holder dismissed. Also present was the Panthers’ “Minister of War,” Najee Muhammed, who had called for murdering Dekalb County, Georgia, police officers with AK-47’s and then mocking their widows.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Heh.
In your response, feel free to post ONE that does not stand on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
Just one.

none of them are.

This is, of course a lie.
Disagree?
Post whichever argument you care to have scrutinized and l show where it appeals to emotion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
lol..
until scalia, no one ever believed that the 2nd created a private right of gun ownership.

This is, of course, a lie.
The idea of the 2nd protecting the rights of a private citizen exited in US Jurisprudence since before Miller.

 

[Dr Grump]

This is, of course a lie.
Disagree?
Post whichever argument you care to have scrutinized and l show where it appeals to emotion.

I don't care if it does appeal to emotion. Just because you think that it somehow matters (this appeal to emotion), doesn't mean it does. Logic and emotion and not intrinsically separate. Something can be both logical and emotional. This 'appeal to emotion' nonsense is just another straw man brought up by gun nits that they think somehow reinforces their argument. It doesn't.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is, of course a lie.
Disagree?
Post whichever argument you care to have scrutinized and l show where it appeals to emotion.

I don't care if it does appeal to emotion. Just because you think that it somehow matters....

An appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy.
Any position based on a fallacy is unsound.
Why do you not care if your positions are unsound?

 

[ChrisL]

This is, of course a lie.
Disagree?
Post whichever argument you care to have scrutinized and l show where it appeals to emotion.

I don't care if it does appeal to emotion. Just because you think that it somehow matters (this appeal to emotion), doesn't mean it does. Logic and emotion and not intrinsically separate. Something can be both logical and emotional. This 'appeal to emotion' nonsense is just another straw man brought up by gun nits that they think somehow reinforces their argument. It doesn't.

We don't make laws based on "emotions."

 

[Flash]

Thank God we have a President that is actually doing something--it is--and is offering something other than thoughts and prayers to the victims.

You have to be kidding. Nobody says something as stupid as that.

That list of things that President Shit for Brains had the other day was worthless. Nothing on that list would have stopped any of the tragedies we have had nor will they stop the 500 shootings in Chicago every year or any place else.

Two of the more substantive items on the list were things that were included in the Grassley Cruz bill that the Senate Democrats voted down.

The worst thing on that list are the background checks. Not only do they do nothing to prevent crime but why does an American citizen have to get permission from the filthy ass government in order to enjoy a right that is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and specifically says that it can not be infringed? Because that is what background checks are. Permission from the filthy ass government.

 

[Dr Grump]

An appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy.
Any position based on a fallacy is unsound.
Why do you not care if your positions are unsound?

Couple of things. Who says my position is based on emotion. As I said, it is common sense.

That aside, who's playing god and saying an appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy? I disagree. Now what?

 

[candycorn]

Maybe so, maybe no. You're speaking from ignorance. But I doubt having to carry a gym bag of 20-30 extra mags or clips or whatever on your person will help your reload speed any. If you have high capacity mags, you needn't worry. If you don't, you have to lug around a bunch of smaller capacity mags, reload every 5 rounds or so. Huge game changer.
I Seriously doubt he's prepared for the bedlam of 100 screaming people, water sprinklers going off (as they did in SB), overturned tables and chairs and getting wounded or tackled.

False statement. We have this idiotic second amendment that douche bags like you feel is somehow a Jeffersonian ouiji board type of fortelling of a battle between the government and yourselves and you've gotta be ready for it. So this means carrying your gun everywhere you go. And, in true douche nozzle form, the folks who should know better have taken up your laughable positions and passed laws so you can carry your guns into Twin Peaks, Chuckee Cheese, and other outlets of tyrrany.

In the cases of large numbers of people gathering who shouldn't be armed, like schools, I fully support having armed guards at the campuses, on the buses, and at any school function.

We live in the same world douchebag. The difference is that I recognize we need to address the near monthly bloodbaths and you just want to erect barriers to prevent any such remedy.

"idiotic second amendment" This statement brought to you by the 1st Amendment.

And?

As far as I know, they (the framers) were the smartest people of their time. However, no group of people, regardless of motives, education, or luck can foresee the societal, technological, or international threat changes wrought in the ensuing 237 years. It's not their fault but they missed on this one.
In the prism of 1789 when there were few police forces, a paltry standing army, and little organization between the state militia's to provide for a common defense, it made sense to have weaponry available to citizenry since sharks were circling the fledgling nation. In the 2016 prism, it's ridiculous. They were equally worried about opposition armies forcing you to house their soldiers....is that a clue as to the mindset of the framers?

The framers didn't miss a beat. Of course they expected firearms to be more advanced as the years passed. They knew that society might change entirely. That's why they included an amendment process in our Constitution. Of course there would have to be a strong consensus for it to change, but they didn't want to see such changes in our Constitution based on a simple majority of opinion one way or the other.

Oh please...

The 3rd Amendment is totally irrelevant and it was thought of (at the time) to be important enough to be in the bill of rights???

Adding an amendment process is required in every agreement; there was no brilliance exhibited by that. Frankly, they made it too easy as was illustrated by prohibition and the repeal of it 11 years later.

Well if it's so easy, then the solution to your problem is already there: amend the Constitution.

No, I was simply showing where national hysteria can overturn the founders intent. Like when some fools want to have the government weigh in on marriage, change the rules that make people born here Americans, etc....

 

[candycorn]

332-206. Success.

One second? Hardly

And the guy being filmed is likely highly trained or even an expert with nobody yelling at him, shooting back or distracting him.

Now imagine the 100+ rounds Adam Lanza squeezed off except add in
20 periods of down time of 2-3 seconds (-although we all know it would be much longer). That is 40-60 seconds to get away.

You can run several hundred yards in that time

You can also return fire or tackle the gunman.

The lone downside is inconvenience to some folks.

Lanza was a retard. People who plan such things have already practiced their moves just like that guy in the video.

Maybe so, maybe no. You're speaking from ignorance. But I doubt having to carry a gym bag of 20-30 extra mags or clips or whatever on your person will help your reload speed any. If you have high capacity mags, you needn't worry. If you don't, you have to lug around a bunch of smaller capacity mags, reload every 5 rounds or so. Huge game changer.

Furthermore is the fact the suspect is prepared for commotion unlike the victims who were not anticipating an attack.

I Seriously doubt he's prepared for the bedlam of 100 screaming people, water sprinklers going off (as they did in SB), overturned tables and chairs and getting wounded or tackled.

You can return fire? Who? How? In your world, nobody has a gun except the police and the criminals. In our world, yes, there would be no restrictions on legal gun carriers and they might be able to minimize the tragedy by shooting the suspect.

That's the point here.

False statement. We have this idiotic second amendment that douche bags like you feel is somehow a Jeffersonian ouiji board type of fortelling of a battle between the government and yourselves and you've gotta be ready for it. So this means carrying your gun everywhere you go. And, in true douche nozzle form, the folks who should know better have taken up your laughable positions and passed laws so you can carry your guns into Twin Peaks, Chuckee Cheese, and other outlets of tyrrany.

In the cases of large numbers of people gathering who shouldn't be armed, like schools, I fully support having armed guards at the campuses, on the buses, and at any school function.

[
I'm also at odds with my liberal friends about having security guards at schools. I mean, if you're going to call a cop to come and take care of an active shooter, wouldn't having an armed security guard on the premises make more sense?

We live in the same world douchebag. The difference is that I recognize we need to address the near monthly bloodbaths and you just want to erect barriers to prevent any such remedy.

I'm speaking from ignorance?

Yes,you are.

You probably never shot a gun in your life yet alone go through training and licensing.

That you have allows you to be put in the mindset of a rampage killer? I played guitar for several years...would I have the first clue of what it's like to be Dave Grohl or Mark Knopfler? Not at all.

Plus you think that by making larger magazines illegal, that would stop a criminal from getting them. Yeah, just like it stopped them from getting a gun in the first place.
The Colorado shooter got much of his stuff from the internet.

Well, we were talking about Adam Lanza who used his mom's arsenal to murder 26 people. She's been called a responsible gun owner here several times.... She wouldn't have the larger magazines now would she?

Yes, our wonderful Constitution did give us the right to protect ourselves from criminals and government by allowing citizens to be armed. But with that right comes responsibility, just like the responsibility you have drinking alcohol, driving an automobile, paying your credit bills, raising children. Not all people that are supposed to be responsible will be, so you can't make laws against everything in life that requires responsibility.

Agreed. But what you can do as a society is take common sense approaches to situations that our founding fathers could not have foreseen. Such as liability insurance for automobiles being mandated in most if not all states. Such as not allowing John Q. Public to purchase Atomic weapons.

If you're having 10,000 people killed every year by someone else with a gun, taking some measure to reduce that number would seem to be the responsible thing to do.

We put seat belts in cars when deaths became alarmingly high. When we found out asbestos was bad for you we, outlawed it in new constructions. When we have dry weather, we issue "burn bands".

And those "bloodbaths" are not how we see most people die from firearms in this country. It's those individual shootings that take place in cities like Chicago, Detroit, and even right here in my town of Cleveland. The mass shootings are sensationalized by the media and get the most attention. Here, we have so many shootings sometimes it doesn't even make the news.

You're right about that. I fail to see how limiting a size of a magazine to 5 will result in more deaths since (if it is two gangs and thus two criminal enterprises) both would avail themselves of larger magazines.

Your opinion about "common sense" gun laws doesn't stand up after the "idiotic 2nd Amendment" statement

Remains to be seen. We seem to have a court that is unabashed about addressing controversial issues and this one could come up right soon.

 

[The Rabbi]

An appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy.
Any position based on a fallacy is unsound.
Why do you not care if your positions are unsound?

Couple of things. Who says my position is based on emotion. As I said, it is common sense.

That aside, who's playing god and saying an appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy? I disagree. Now what?

First you say your position is based on emotion. Now it isnt. Which is it, genius?
For the record there is no good argument for any gun control proposal circulating. They have all been debunked as ineffective.