What is the republican solution to ending mass shootings? Why don’t they ever offer solutions?

[beagle9]

We already have this.

yes we do, and background checks will never happen when one gangbanger trades a gun to another gangbanger for a bag of crack. That is what the libs refuse to understand. Criminals do not obey laws, that's why they are called criminals.

Yep, and as long the libs refuse to blame the thugs/criminals/gangbangers etc, and continue to go after the guns in which are only bad in the hands of such criminals then we won't never solve the issue... No they (the libs), want only to go after the non-criminals rights in this country, and so we won't ever solve the issue, and therefore the killing by these lib protected criminals will continue.

And as long as your bunch keeps making the weapons so readily and easily available to them they will continue to use them. The Gun Runner and Supplier is as guilty as the criminal that shoots the gun. And you support the supplying of the arms to criminals. So stand up and take a bow.

You take the bow for supporting the criminals first by attacking the good citizens for the evilness of the bad people. The bad people can be stopped, but liberalism/leftism won't stop it ever, because it has a serious problem with sympathizing with the bad people who are just getting back at those "evil rich priveledged citizens" in life. Now Own it.

You mean it's wrong to take away the supply of guns from the criminals? You mean that your bunch supplying those guns is a good thing? Wow, what a concept. So keep supplying those arms that are used to kill 7 year olds and Grandmothers for their SS checks. Hope you are proud of yourself.

No, you lock the criminals up, and then there are no criminals to steal guns from the good people. No one is supplying guns to criminals except for the criminals getting them from other criminals who should have been locked up as well. Getting Demon-crats to get tough on crime and criminals is like attempting to pull lions teeth with ones bare hands. Nice try attempting to suggest that conservatives are responsible for arming criminals. You lose.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

yes we do, and background checks will never happen when one gangbanger trades a gun to another gangbanger for a bag of crack. That is what the libs refuse to understand. Criminals do not obey laws, that's why they are called criminals.

Yep, and as long the libs refuse to blame the thugs/criminals/gangbangers etc, and continue to go after the guns in which are only bad in the hands of such criminals then we won't never solve the issue... No they (the libs), want only to go after the non-criminals rights in this country, and so we won't ever solve the issue, and therefore the killing by these lib protected criminals will continue.

And as long as your bunch keeps making the weapons so readily and easily available to them they will continue to use them. The Gun Runner and Supplier is as guilty as the criminal that shoots the gun. And you support the supplying of the arms to criminals. So stand up and take a bow.

You take the bow for supporting the criminals first by attacking the good citizens for the evilness of the bad people. The bad people can be stopped, but liberalism/leftism won't stop it ever, because it has a serious problem with sympathizing with the bad people who are just getting back at those "evil rich priveledged citizens" in life. Now Own it.

You mean it's wrong to take away the supply of guns from the criminals? You mean that your bunch supplying those guns is a good thing? Wow, what a concept. So keep supplying those arms that are used to kill 7 year olds and Grandmothers for their SS checks. Hope you are proud of yourself.

No, you lock the criminals up, and then there are no criminals to steal guns from the good people. No one is supplying guns to criminals except for the criminals getting them from other criminals who should have been locked up as well. Getting Demon-crats to get tough on crime and criminals is like attempting to pull lions teeth with ones bare hands. Nice try attempting to suggest that conservatives are responsible for arming criminals. You lose.

Are you against universal background checks that are vigorously enforced? That would stop the illegal buying, transporting and selling of illegal guns into the Metro Gang Areas along with exporting said guns to Mexican Cartels. Sorry, the Mexican Cartels get the good stuff because they can afford to pay for it. The Gangs just get the cheap junk. Wouldn't you say that anyone buying guns with the express purpose of selling them to a gang in Chicago is a Criminal?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

the Model 1903 achieved commercial success and continued to be manufactured until 1932 when the Winchester Model 63 replaced it.

the Model 1903 achieved commercial success and continued to be manufactured until 1932 when the Winchester Model 63 replaced it.

Commercial success

You still insist that the world is as YOU say it is

IOW you are fucking delusional

A. It was a tube fed .22
B. Less than a half million of both the 1903 and the 63 combined were made in the FORTY FUCKING YEARS they were being manufactured.

You really need to sit in the corner

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[Flash]

[ Truth be known, a little gun regulation does help us all. A lot harms us all. None harms us all. There are many ways to be the strongest. You can be a huge hulking physical mass, a trained person in some kind of martial arts, a Boxer, or have a gun. Take your pick. Within 20 feet, if you don't have your gun already ready, you may have just brought your gun to a knife fight which may mean the shiv specialtist may be the strongest. Baseball Bats at 5 feet also work. Or you may have a sharp wit and confuse the hell out of the other person and get them to hesitate pulling their weapon while you pull your less effective weapon out (hit him with a toaster).

Now about resisting the Governments Tyranny, let's look at that. When the nation was formed, you are right. The Civilians were armed exactly like the maximum number of the Federal Military (75,000) was. Almost any State could raise an army that large very quickly and it was called a State Militia comprised of ALL Free White Men from the ages of 17 to 45. There was no way that the Feds could go up against even ONE state much less all of them. It was the Feds that called on the States for many of the things that the Feds would do today like the Whiskey Rebellion.

It worked out well until the Civil War where the State Militias had to be called up to fight a major war. It started to break down from there when more and more really nasty and expensive weapons were being introduced. Up until then, a Canon could be had by almost any rich person who would proudly display it at fairs and fire it. But right around the corner was the Artillery, Machine Guns, Mortars, and even nastier stuff that was very, very expensive and required a high degree of special training to use. Hello WWI.

In 1917, it was found that the old States Guards method would no longer work. They needed to call up millions for the war effort and under the Militia Laws, they could not call up the State Guards. So they Nationalized the State Guards and the National Guard was formed. It was actually slowly forming before that but the 1917 National Guard Act just made it Formal. Now, the states could have their States Militias under the old rules but their Guard Units could be nationalized by the President of the United States in the case of an emergency. And I believe WWI qualified as an Emergency. The States could have stopped this easily but didn't because they could not afford the cost of training and equipping the Guards to the degree required for WWI. Only the Feds under a War Powers Act had that much money. At that point, the States could no longer go up against the Federal Government with even an inkling of a chance of success no matter what.

You say that the Guards would side with the States? Sure, if the Feds use the Guards inside your State to quell the state. But they won't. It's an old trick as old as kingdoms. Ship the local boys over to another region and ship the boys from that region to the troubled region and have them quell the riots. If it's a northern problem area, use southern boys. If it's a southern area, use northern boys. Kings, Dukes and the like did that all the time even borrowing from other Kingdoms with promises of favor.

AT the same time that the 1917 National Guard Act was put into law, the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Justice) had an addition to it that precluded any military member from not following the Constitution of the United States and had them refuse Illegal Orders. In 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was past which made it difficult to use Federal Military Troops inside the US. It only applied to the Army, not the Navy or the Marines. The Air Force was added in 1956. The Navy (hence the Marines) has language in their regulations that pretty much say the same thing. The various Regs and UCMJ pretty much means that the Military will refuse any order given by any President that they feel is Illegal. Illegal means Unconstitutional. While they may not do an overthrow, they will probably do nothing. Just sit there. When that happens, any President in that situation is pretty well done. It's happened once in my lifetime and the President didn't give any unlawful or unconstitutional orders. But he was not coherent for at least 3 days. The Military quietly did a sit down.

You keep trying to scare the 7 year olds with this drivel. I took an oath 5 times. No one told me that I should disregard that oath or I was relieved from it. I still believe it's my duty to defend against all Enemies of the Nation both Foreign and Domestic. And, you sir, are Domestic. But then again, this is the internet, you also might be Foreign. But that crap is still part of the enemy of the State and Constitution.

A gun is a great equalizer. It provides strength to the weak. That is a good thing.

History is full of examples of a lesser armed populace defeating a better armed government. However, an unarmed citizens very seldom prevails over a tyrannical government.

Gun control is always a domestic policy failure. It makes the people in power feel like they have the upper hand and it provides a security fantasy for the weak minded but at the end of the day it is useless to prevent crime.

I don't know what you oath you took but I took one. An oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and it says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Trust me on that. Go look it up if you don't believe me.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

[ Truth be known, a little gun regulation does help us all. A lot harms us all. None harms us all. There are many ways to be the strongest. You can be a huge hulking physical mass, a trained person in some kind of martial arts, a Boxer, or have a gun. Take your pick. Within 20 feet, if you don't have your gun already ready, you may have just brought your gun to a knife fight which may mean the shiv specialtist may be the strongest. Baseball Bats at 5 feet also work. Or you may have a sharp wit and confuse the hell out of the other person and get them to hesitate pulling their weapon while you pull your less effective weapon out (hit him with a toaster).

Now about resisting the Governments Tyranny, let's look at that. When the nation was formed, you are right. The Civilians were armed exactly like the maximum number of the Federal Military (75,000) was. Almost any State could raise an army that large very quickly and it was called a State Militia comprised of ALL Free White Men from the ages of 17 to 45. There was no way that the Feds could go up against even ONE state much less all of them. It was the Feds that called on the States for many of the things that the Feds would do today like the Whiskey Rebellion.

It worked out well until the Civil War where the State Militias had to be called up to fight a major war. It started to break down from there when more and more really nasty and expensive weapons were being introduced. Up until then, a Canon could be had by almost any rich person who would proudly display it at fairs and fire it. But right around the corner was the Artillery, Machine Guns, Mortars, and even nastier stuff that was very, very expensive and required a high degree of special training to use. Hello WWI.

In 1917, it was found that the old States Guards method would no longer work. They needed to call up millions for the war effort and under the Militia Laws, they could not call up the State Guards. So they Nationalized the State Guards and the National Guard was formed. It was actually slowly forming before that but the 1917 National Guard Act just made it Formal. Now, the states could have their States Militias under the old rules but their Guard Units could be nationalized by the President of the United States in the case of an emergency. And I believe WWI qualified as an Emergency. The States could have stopped this easily but didn't because they could not afford the cost of training and equipping the Guards to the degree required for WWI. Only the Feds under a War Powers Act had that much money. At that point, the States could no longer go up against the Federal Government with even an inkling of a chance of success no matter what.

You say that the Guards would side with the States? Sure, if the Feds use the Guards inside your State to quell the state. But they won't. It's an old trick as old as kingdoms. Ship the local boys over to another region and ship the boys from that region to the troubled region and have them quell the riots. If it's a northern problem area, use southern boys. If it's a southern area, use northern boys. Kings, Dukes and the like did that all the time even borrowing from other Kingdoms with promises of favor.

AT the same time that the 1917 National Guard Act was put into law, the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Justice) had an addition to it that precluded any military member from not following the Constitution of the United States and had them refuse Illegal Orders. In 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was past which made it difficult to use Federal Military Troops inside the US. It only applied to the Army, not the Navy or the Marines. The Air Force was added in 1956. The Navy (hence the Marines) has language in their regulations that pretty much say the same thing. The various Regs and UCMJ pretty much means that the Military will refuse any order given by any President that they feel is Illegal. Illegal means Unconstitutional. While they may not do an overthrow, they will probably do nothing. Just sit there. When that happens, any President in that situation is pretty well done. It's happened once in my lifetime and the President didn't give any unlawful or unconstitutional orders. But he was not coherent for at least 3 days. The Military quietly did a sit down.

You keep trying to scare the 7 year olds with this drivel. I took an oath 5 times. No one told me that I should disregard that oath or I was relieved from it. I still believe it's my duty to defend against all Enemies of the Nation both Foreign and Domestic. And, you sir, are Domestic. But then again, this is the internet, you also might be Foreign. But that crap is still part of the enemy of the State and Constitution.

A gun is a great equalizer. It provides strength to the weak. That is a good thing.

History is full of examples of a lesser armed populace defeating a better armed government. However, an unarmed citizens very seldom prevails over a tyrannical government.

Gun control is always a domestic policy failure. It makes the people in power feel like they have the upper hand and it provides a security fantasy for the weak minded but at the end of the day it is useless to prevent crime.

I don't know what you oath you took but I took one. An oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and it says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Trust me on that. Go look it up if you don't believe me.

I took the oath to defend ALL of the constitution not just the parts that I agree with.

 

[Lesh]

A gun is a great equalizer. It provides strength to the weak

It allows the weak to kill the many

 

[Daryl Hunt]

A gun is a great equalizer. It provides strength to the weak

It allows the weak to kill the many

Or if the gun crazies get their way, it allows the many to murder the weak.

 

[Skull Pilot]

18 year olds are not children

They certainly can be mass murderers with the help of military style weapons

Semiautomatic rifles are not "military style"

Semiautomatic firearms have been available to the public for over 100 years

And have become much more popular in recent years. Law enforcement used revolvers when I was a kid.

You do know that a revolver is a semiautomatic don't you?

You do know they don’t use high capacity magazines right?

30 rounds is standard capacity and has been for years until you people refined them as "high capacity"

 

[Skull Pilot]

A double action revolver is a semiautomatic

Double action and semi-auto refer to two very different mechanisms.

If you don't understand the subject you really nee to shut the fuck up

It's a fucking distinction without a difference

The resulting fire is exactly the same

Wonder why our worst mass shootings haven’t been with revolvers...

Because revolvers suck

 

[Skull Pilot]

A gun is a great equalizer. It provides strength to the weak

It allows the weak to kill the many

Or if the gun crazies get their way, it allows the many to murder the weak.

Which just doesn't happen because the many who own firearms will never commit any crimes much less murder

 

[Skull Pilot]

A gun is a great equalizer. It provides strength to the weak

It allows the weak to kill the many

And it allows more of the weak to protect themselves from becoming prey

 

[Skull Pilot]

So the fuck what

the FUCKING FACT is that semiautomatic rifles have been available to civilians for over 100 FUCKING YEARS

So what. It can be made available but if it doesn't sell, so what. blowback works terrible. Better to have a pump which many 22lrs were at the time.

And I am still correct.

Just because the rifles got better in subsequent models is irrelevant and if a rifle was a commercial success by definition it was bought by civilians

You are being dishonest as usual.

Tell me exactly what is dishonest about the statement that semiautomatic rifles have been available to civilians for over 100 years

You are ignoring that they having been that popular until recent years. Which was my point. Our worst mass shooting have been done with them.

Define popular

The first Winchester semiautos were commercially successful so they kept making them

And you do realize that more people are killed annually with knives than with rifles
Shit more people are killed with fists than annually than with rifles

So why you obsess over what amounts to less than 1% of murders is beyond me

 

[Skull Pilot]

Wonder why our worst mass shootings haven’t been with revolvers...

It takes so long to load them...and when you're nervous ya keep dropping the bullets...and they only hold 6-7 bullets...

Just not a great mass murder weapon.

Semi-autos are much better

mass shootings account for less than 1% of murder

you could wave your magic wand and sprinkle your fairy dust and magically end mass shootings and it wouldn't put a dent in the murder rate

 

[Skull Pilot]

A double action revolver is a semiautomatic

Double action and semi-auto refer to two very different mechanisms.

If you don't understand the subject you really nee to shut the fuck up

It's a fucking distinction without a difference

The resulting fire is exactly the same

Wonder why our worst mass shootings haven’t been with revolvers...

Speed loaders are expensive. And I checked out some Wheel Guns the other day. You can't fine a decent wheel gun for a decent price now with more than a 5 round capacity. (A Western Drawl) "I'm gonna' shoot you dead with my 5 shooter" just ain't the same.

Speed loaders are not expensive

Revolver Speedloaders - Cheaper Than Dirt

 

[Skull Pilot]

A double action revolver is a semiautomatic

Double action and semi-auto refer to two very different mechanisms.

If you don't understand the subject you really nee to shut the fuck up

It's a fucking distinction without a difference

The resulting fire is exactly the same

Wonder why our worst mass shootings haven’t been with revolvers...

Speed loaders are expensive. And I checked out some Wheel Guns the other day. You can't fine a decent wheel gun for a decent price now with more than a 5 round capacity. (A Western Drawl) "I'm gonna' shoot you dead with my 5 shooter" just ain't the same.

revolvers suck

 

[Skull Pilot]

So the fuck what

the FUCKING FACT is that semiautomatic rifles have been available to civilians for over 100 FUCKING YEARS

So what. It can be made available but if it doesn't sell, so what. blowback works terrible. Better to have a pump which many 22lrs were at the time.

And I am still correct.

Just because the rifles got better in subsequent models is irrelevant and if a rifle was a commercial success by definition it was bought by civilians

It made very few sales. It sucked the big one.

Commercial success if Winchester lost money they wouldn't have kept making them



The Remington 1906 was even more well received as it was available in more calibers and was used by some law enforcement agencies

and again Remington saw commercial success and continued to produce them

I would expect the rifles to get better the longer they were in production

So whine and rant all you want

The semiautomatic rifle has been available to civilians for over a century

You are referring to the Model 8. Only 80K of them were ever made. Along with about 1900 FN models. That was in it's entire life. It jammed, it was dirty, it smoked like a chimney and occasionally blew up in your face. It stopped production in 1929. But it was made in a ton of different calibers from a 22lr all the way to a 410 Winchester. The bulk were of the 32 and 35 caliber models and were used for hunting. But they were inferior to the pump action 30.30 and the Savage lever action 303 Model 99. Yes, it was a better moustrap as long as you didn't mind losing a finger once in awhile setting the trap.

They later on improved on the Blowback and made it a lot safer. But by then, the gas discharge was being introduced which meant that the better semi auto rifles went the gas discharge route instead. With the exception of the Remington Nylon 22 that is. But the little Remington used the modified blow back which was much safer. Spent a few hours, days, months, etc. on one of those puppies. The original Blowback worked well with the 22LR but when you stepped it up to the larger more powerful rounds, it got very dangerous. Just because you offer it and you sell it doesn't make it good. Stanley Steamers sold real well at one time.

80000 in the early 1900's

And it was a commercial success which means the comapny made a profit and enough of a profit to keep making and improving them

 

[Skull Pilot]

Wonder why our worst mass shootings haven’t been with revolvers...

It takes so long to load them...and when you're nervous ya keep dropping the bullets...and they only hold 6-7 bullets...

Just not a great mass murder weapon.

Semi-autos are much better

Revolvers are great for defense though, wow a great defensive weapon that isn’t great for mass killing... one might think we should have those instead of lots of weapons for mass killing. Guess that’s too much common sense...

No they're not

Home invasions are usually committed more than one person why would you limit yourself to 5 rounds?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yep, and as long the libs refuse to blame the thugs/criminals/gangbangers etc, and continue to go after the guns in which are only bad in the hands of such criminals then we won't never solve the issue... No they (the libs), want only to go after the non-criminals rights in this country, and so we won't ever solve the issue, and therefore the killing by these lib protected criminals will continue.

And as long as your bunch keeps making the weapons so readily and easily available to them they will continue to use them. The Gun Runner and Supplier is as guilty as the criminal that shoots the gun. And you support the supplying of the arms to criminals. So stand up and take a bow.

You take the bow for supporting the criminals first by attacking the good citizens for the evilness of the bad people. The bad people can be stopped, but liberalism/leftism won't stop it ever, because it has a serious problem with sympathizing with the bad people who are just getting back at those "evil rich priveledged citizens" in life. Now Own it.

You mean it's wrong to take away the supply of guns from the criminals? You mean that your bunch supplying those guns is a good thing? Wow, what a concept. So keep supplying those arms that are used to kill 7 year olds and Grandmothers for their SS checks. Hope you are proud of yourself.

No, you lock the criminals up, and then there are no criminals to steal guns from the good people. No one is supplying guns to criminals except for the criminals getting them from other criminals who should have been locked up as well. Getting Demon-crats to get tough on crime and criminals is like attempting to pull lions teeth with ones bare hands. Nice try attempting to suggest that conservatives are responsible for arming criminals. You lose.

Are you against universal background checks that are vigorously enforced? That would stop the illegal buying, transporting and selling of illegal guns into the Metro Gang Areas along with exporting said guns to Mexican Cartels. Sorry, the Mexican Cartels get the good stuff because they can afford to pay for it. The Gangs just get the cheap junk. Wouldn't you say that anyone buying guns with the express purpose of selling them to a gang in Chicago is a Criminal?

It wouldn't stop illegal sales.

 

[Lesh]

A double action revolver is a semiautomatic

Double action and semi-auto refer to two very different mechanisms.

If you don't understand the subject you really nee to shut the fuck up

It's a fucking distinction without a difference

The resulting fire is exactly the same

Wonder why our worst mass shootings haven’t been with revolvers...

Speed loaders are expensive. And I checked out some Wheel Guns the other day. You can't fine a decent wheel gun for a decent price now with more than a 5 round capacity. (A Western Drawl) "I'm gonna' shoot you dead with my 5 shooter" just ain't the same.

Speed loaders are not expensive

Revolver Speedloaders - Cheaper Than Dirt

You're arguing against yourself.

First they are easy to reload and then they aren't enough firepower for your "Gunfight at the OK Corral"

 

[Skull Pilot]

Double action and semi-auto refer to two very different mechanisms.

If you don't understand the subject you really nee to shut the fuck up

It's a fucking distinction without a difference

The resulting fire is exactly the same

Wonder why our worst mass shootings haven’t been with revolvers...

Speed loaders are expensive. And I checked out some Wheel Guns the other day. You can't fine a decent wheel gun for a decent price now with more than a 5 round capacity. (A Western Drawl) "I'm gonna' shoot you dead with my 5 shooter" just ain't the same.

Speed loaders are not expensive

Revolver Speedloaders - Cheaper Than Dirt

You're arguing against yourself.

First they are easy to reload and then they aren't enough firepower fr your "Gunfight at the OK Corral"

No, I don't like revolvers never did but DUHryl said speed loaders are expensive just like he said that a 15 round mag of 9 mm rounds is too heavy

He was wrong as usual

And FYI I have no desire to shoot anyone or to get into a gun fight just like I have no desire to be a firefighter but I have a couple fire extinguishers in my house

The fact is 99.999% of gun owners will never shoot anyone but you want to hold them responsible for crimes other people commit