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

[Markle]

Bloody hell, this is another one of those games of Fucked Up Chinese Whispers, hey?

The point, if you give a shit about the point, here is that you say we should give guns to "the good people". I asked who "the good people" are.

Are "the good people" all the people who have never been convicted of a crime? I'd think a lot of people would disagree with you. Seeing how such a person is capable of picking up a gun and going and shooting anyone.

But hey, feel free to distort everything for your own entertainment. Just don't expect me to hang around and keep you entertained.

Bye, whatever will we do without you?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You will notice that I don't advocate the banning but the regulation. I think we both know there is a world of difference in those two terms. But the gun crazies operate that if you are not completely with them, you are completely against them. And they are looking for someone else to blame other than themselves. What they don't understand is, they may be right on certain parts but they come off as crackpot overall. And then things may go overboard on the Regulations. Usually, the new gun regs pretty well it right in most states. And they are all slowly coming towards the same Regulations. Then when they notice that there are enough of people like me and yes, the other side fringe, posting then here comes the temper tantrum and the threat of a revolution to "Protect their Rights".

No.... 2nd Amendment supporters know that the regulations you want do nothing to stop mass shooters, or criminals and all they do is set up the next step in the march to ban and confiscate guns.

You are a lost cause. The ONLY thing the 2nd amendment does is limit the Feds. And our common sense laws here have proven you wrong. We have the highest number of mass shootings here than any other state. But it stopped cold when we went to common sense regulations and social changes. Not Socialist changes as your reading what you want to read, but real social changes. It's much harder now for the shooter to get his weapons into place to use them. And a few other tidbits. It works. But your bunch and the NRA fought tooth and nail and spent millions to try and block all this while spewing your "Fixes" or not offering any viable "Fixes" in the process. You failed, we won and we are safer now than we were 20 years ago.

Wrong, The 2nd Amendment doesn't grant a Right, it doesn't only limit the power of the Federal government ......the Right belongs to us in the state as well....Mcdonald v City of Chicago explained that to people like you...

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.

There you go again. McDonald, like Heller was taken up because the State tried to ban handguns in the home. Handguns, conventional hunting rifles and shotguns (except for shortened barrels) are a right to have in hour home. All other weapons are privileges, not rights. The ones that are deemed privileges are done that way for the sake of Public Safety. But it does NOT stop the state from requiring you to have to register the firearm or for you to have to possess a license to own it. The State just has to make it where you CAN own the lesser firearms. And they can come and take you guns if you don't follow their regulations. As long as it's done with Due Process that is. You are just throwing another temper tantrum.

Wrong.....again.

Heller stated that all guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment, especially the ones that are in common use...like the AR-15, the most popular rifle in the country and Scalia specifically named it as protected in his dissent on Friedman v. Highland park....

And specifically they state you don't read any Right by allowing the government to say, okay, you are allowed the absolute minimum, so we have honored the Right...doesn't work that way, doofus.

Here...Scalia, clarifying, for people like you what Heller protects...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

The actual ruling was about the DC requirement for citizens to have to disassemble their handguns in the home. The Court ruled that DC could not require this. What came out of it was that Heller was to be afforded the chance to get a Permit to have a fully function handgun in his home. He didn't just automatically get the right to the handgun without the permit. He had to qualify and DC had to present a reasonable method of registration. And that is it. Nothing more. You can read into it all you want but what counts isn't the back and forth discussion between the Justices but the Synopsis. You seem to forget that DC is not covered under the 10th amendment since it's not a state. It relies on Federal Courts. It's not the smartest way to run things. But it just is.

So stop this nonsense that you keep bringing up with your selective reading. Come up with something new for a change. How about something more down your line like killing puppies.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If they are equivalent to the AR-15 then why do you need them?

Because they are customizable, easy to shoot for all sizes of shooters especially women and the only reason you twits want the AR-15 so bad is that if you establish the precedent that the AR-15 rifle is dangerous because it is a semi automatic weapon....then you can come back and demand all other semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns, as well as revolvers be banned because as we tell you, and you will state later.....they all operate the same way.

You left out the mos important. It's the one designed to do the most damage in the fastest time. And you left out that it was designed as a combat rifle. Then you left out that there are much better alternatives. You left out that it has the body count record for mass shooters. You left out that it's easy to conceal and transport it.

I don't advocate outright banning of the AR but I do advocate better controls on it through common sense firearms regulation.

The first requirement of common sense firearms regulation is common sense. Since none of the proposed "common sense" gun regulations would prevent another mass murder, they are far from common sense regulation.

No regulation has kept a single gun out of the hands of a gang banger or a potential mass murderer. Adding more regulations will not solve the firearm murder rate. Mainly, since those determined to do the murders don't give a tinker's damn about your regulations. The only people affected are honest, law abiding citizens.

Next, is this over fascination with numbers. One dead, no big deal, ten dead, big deal. Yet, ten dead is nothing more than one dead, ten times over. People die individually, and are mourned individually.

All common sense gun regs do is minimize the body count and make it harder for stupid people to kill so easily. There is quite a bit involved in those common sense regs but you will find each and every one of them an affront to your "Rights".

The problem you have is the phrase "common sense". Who decides what that is?

The Voter or Citizen of the State. If at any time you disagree with the law, you just can't start ignoring like you keep suggesting. You have the right (and the obligation) to get it onto the next Ballot so the voters can decide on way or another. The fact that our state seems satisfied with the current laws means that they find it to be common sense. Not too much and not too little. While the Citizens may have little to affect the Federal Programs, we do have the right to affect the State and Local ones. We vote. It's a snap to get something on the State Ballots. I have noticed that some (I won't say which party) has been pushing to make it more difficult and costly to get something on the ballot but that has failed as well. Common sense by the Voter, not just the way YOU want it. Now, if you can't figure out what I mean by Common Sense Gun Regulations, google the gun laws of Colorado. And remember, you don't have to agree with them but if you live here you are going to have to follow them until if and when you get them on the ballot and change them.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Partly because there is no real difference between an assault weapon and any other magazine fed semi-auto weapon...and no real need for either of those very dangerous weapons

That statement is just foolish.

Please give us your definition of an assault weapon. Not your fantasies, what is the definition of an assault weapon. What is the difference between that and, say, an AR-15?

You will agree that a M-16 is an assault rifle, right? And that definition has nothing to do with the A in the AR. It's used to assault in a war condition and it's pretty damned good at it. It's normally used in it's single shot setting because it just wastes ammo otherwise. So now you have a single shot M-16. Can you tell me the difference between an AR-15 and a M-16/M-4? And don't give me that crap about the AR must being a sporting rifle. You may be right but the sport animal it was designed to assault is human. All other uses are secondary.

So you agree that the AR-15 is far from being any sort of Assault Weapon. THANK YOU!

Follow along kiddies.

We're told that it's important to have an AR-15 because it is a good gun for shooting squirrels...

We're also told that it's not a good self defense weapon (there are many much better)...

And that the main reason for having one is a "defense against the government"...but that it's not a military grade weapon.

Of course defending oneself against an actual military with a weapon that is admittedly not military grade sounds silly but then the entire gun hugger argument is pretty fucking silly so....

Oh and no...the gun huggers have no solution to mass shootings or gun violence because ...they just don't see it as a problem

That's your imagination. Of course it's a problem. The question is if it can be solved. Our stance is that disarming the public and even the removal of AR's will not solve anything. It would only make people like yourself feel better.

But even if you could accomplish either of those things, and the next mass shooting takes place, you will want to advance to the next step, and the next, and the next.

That is where we really stand.

What we have here is too fringe groups yelling at each other while they are so LOUD that the rest of us have trouble discussing anything. You people aren't necessarily right, you are just LOUD.

 

[SmokeALib]

Ban cars. And forks. And knives. And rocks. And straws... Oh, wait...

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Partly because there is no real difference between an assault weapon and any other magazine fed semi-auto weapon...and no real need for either of those very dangerous weapons

That statement is just foolish.

Please give us your definition of an assault weapon. Not your fantasies, what is the definition of an assault weapon. What is the difference between that and, say, an AR-15?

You will agree that a M-16 is an assault rifle, right? And that definition has nothing to do with the A in the AR. It's used to assault in a war condition and it's pretty damned good at it. It's normally used in it's single shot setting because it just wastes ammo otherwise. So now you have a single shot M-16. Can you tell me the difference between an AR-15 and a M-16/M-4? And don't give me that crap about the AR must being a sporting rifle. You may be right but the sport animal it was designed to assault is human. All other uses are secondary.

So you agree that the AR-15 is far from being any sort of Assault Weapon. THANK YOU!

Follow along kiddies.

We're told that it's important to have an AR-15 because it is a good gun for shooting squirrels...

We're also told that it's not a good self defense weapon (there are many much better)...

And that the main reason for having one is a "defense against the government"...but that it's not a military grade weapon.

Of course defending oneself against an actual military with a weapon that is admittedly not military grade sounds silly but then the entire gun hugger argument is pretty fucking silly so....

Oh and no...the gun huggers have no solution to mass shootings or gun violence because ...they just don't see it as a problem

That's your imagination. Of course it's a problem. The question is if it can be solved. Our stance is that disarming the public and even the removal of AR's will not solve anything. It would only make people like yourself feel better.

But even if you could accomplish either of those things, and the next mass shooting takes place, you will want to advance to the next step, and the next, and the next.

That is where we really stand.

The only thing we can do is actually a social problem. Yah, I know, I type social and you transpose "Socialist" over it. But social change has nothing to do with a bunch of commies. Here are some steps that have helped here, at the permission of the Voters

1. Put in detectors right on the front door of the School, or any public gathering place. This stops even handguns from being brought in. Yah, I know, there are still stupid kids that try and bring in their Daddys handgun out of kicks but the get bagged very quickly and the gun gets confiscated by the Police to never be returned. The Onus is on the Parents in this case. And put well trained Armed Security on that Gate. It prevents or slows down firearms being brought into the public areas where you have no choice but to have as a Gun Free Zone.

2. Educate the general public. In Texas, you may see people walking around on a hot sunny dry day wearing Rain Coats or Dusters. Here, if you see that, the Cops are called if you are within 1000 feet of a School. The Cops respond. 3 times the cops have been called. 2 of the times, it was a stupid fashion statement that I doubt if that student will ever do again. The 3rd time, under that Rain Coat was an AR and 4 30 round mags. The School didn't call it in. A concerned Citizen called it in and the Cops took all 3 as serious as a heart attack.

You don't need every Teacher Armed. Right after the States Board of Education approved that the Teachers can be armed, the Teachers Association along with the PTAs turned it down. There have been accidental discharged by teachers in schools that have done this. And if you same one life then you should do it. There are other methods.

There are other methods that can be used at the same time. If you want to see them, google Colorado Firearms Regulations. When you total it all together, you end up with a much safter place.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That statement is just foolish.

Please give us your definition of an assault weapon. Not your fantasies, what is the definition of an assault weapon. What is the difference between that and, say, an AR-15?

You will agree that a M-16 is an assault rifle, right? And that definition has nothing to do with the A in the AR. It's used to assault in a war condition and it's pretty damned good at it. It's normally used in it's single shot setting because it just wastes ammo otherwise. So now you have a single shot M-16. Can you tell me the difference between an AR-15 and a M-16/M-4? And don't give me that crap about the AR must being a sporting rifle. You may be right but the sport animal it was designed to assault is human. All other uses are secondary.

So you agree that the AR-15 is far from being any sort of Assault Weapon. THANK YOU!

Follow along kiddies.

We're told that it's important to have an AR-15 because it is a good gun for shooting squirrels...

We're also told that it's not a good self defense weapon (there are many much better)...

And that the main reason for having one is a "defense against the government"...but that it's not a military grade weapon.

Of course defending oneself against an actual military with a weapon that is admittedly not military grade sounds silly but then the entire gun hugger argument is pretty fucking silly so....

Oh and no...the gun huggers have no solution to mass shootings or gun violence because ...they just don't see it as a problem

That's your imagination. Of course it's a problem. The question is if it can be solved. Our stance is that disarming the public and even the removal of AR's will not solve anything. It would only make people like yourself feel better.

But even if you could accomplish either of those things, and the next mass shooting takes place, you will want to advance to the next step, and the next, and the next.

That is where we really stand.

What we have here is too fringe groups yelling at each other while they are so LOUD that the rest of us have trouble discussing anything. You people aren't necessarily right, you are just LOUD.

Well......loud is how you are heard. The left is loud via MSM. We don't have that, so we need to yell louder. All we really have is AM radio and Fox news. The MSM, Hollywood, education, the internet is all dominated by the left.

But because we yell louder doesn't mean we are wrong either.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

All I have seen in any gun control thread is the same old tired shit statements by liberal leftist who for the most part have no idea what they are talking about, have never even held a gun or been in any serious fight for their life, have never spent much time in an intercity ghetto They are intent on deciding what rights other people can exercise while at the same time believing their right to dictate to others what they can have, what they must pay for, what their choices can be and what they must use for their different needs. They presume to know and want to dictate to people they do not know or have no idea the needs of how they can protect themselves and their families in situations they have no knowledge of whatsoever. They have no working knowledge of the area, threat, opponent timeline or possible help involved yet their self professed intellectual superiority gives them those dictatorial rights. BULLSHIT! You idiots take care of your own dumb asses just wait for the cops. What you dumb asses don’t realize is that most of those murders that don’t involve a gun happen because the dead person waited on and depended on the cops to protect them. Being a liberal you should want a gun since your neighborhoods have made the cops have to wait till a gun is pointed at them before they shoot. Their job has become investigate the murder don’t shoot unless you are shot at.

Are you saying that I have NEVER held a gun in my life? Are you saying that I promote the confiscation of all firearms? Are you saying because I disagree with you that I am a liberal? Simple yes or no answer.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You will agree that a M-16 is an assault rifle, right? And that definition has nothing to do with the A in the AR. It's used to assault in a war condition and it's pretty damned good at it. It's normally used in it's single shot setting because it just wastes ammo otherwise. So now you have a single shot M-16. Can you tell me the difference between an AR-15 and a M-16/M-4? And don't give me that crap about the AR must being a sporting rifle. You may be right but the sport animal it was designed to assault is human. All other uses are secondary.

So you agree that the AR-15 is far from being any sort of Assault Weapon. THANK YOU!

Follow along kiddies.

We're told that it's important to have an AR-15 because it is a good gun for shooting squirrels...

We're also told that it's not a good self defense weapon (there are many much better)...

And that the main reason for having one is a "defense against the government"...but that it's not a military grade weapon.

Of course defending oneself against an actual military with a weapon that is admittedly not military grade sounds silly but then the entire gun hugger argument is pretty fucking silly so....

Oh and no...the gun huggers have no solution to mass shootings or gun violence because ...they just don't see it as a problem

That's your imagination. Of course it's a problem. The question is if it can be solved. Our stance is that disarming the public and even the removal of AR's will not solve anything. It would only make people like yourself feel better.

But even if you could accomplish either of those things, and the next mass shooting takes place, you will want to advance to the next step, and the next, and the next.

That is where we really stand.

What we have here is too fringe groups yelling at each other while they are so LOUD that the rest of us have trouble discussing anything. You people aren't necessarily right, you are just LOUD.

Well......loud is how you are heard. The left is loud via MSM. We don't have that, so we need to yell louder. All we really have is AM radio and Fox news. The MSM, Hollywood, education, the internet is all dominated by the left.

But because we yell louder doesn't mean we are wrong either.

In an 8 hour period in there, I saw just a couple or three posts by a few people. But there were 64 posts by the same 4 people trying to yell down everyone else though insulting posts. Your bunch tries to bury everyone elses inputs. It's hard to weed through all the Insulting Posts to get to the meat of the subject. Once your posts goes into the loud venue, people just stop reading it and your real message is lost whether its right or not.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That statement is just foolish.

Please give us your definition of an assault weapon. Not your fantasies, what is the definition of an assault weapon. What is the difference between that and, say, an AR-15?

You will agree that a M-16 is an assault rifle, right? And that definition has nothing to do with the A in the AR. It's used to assault in a war condition and it's pretty damned good at it. It's normally used in it's single shot setting because it just wastes ammo otherwise. So now you have a single shot M-16. Can you tell me the difference between an AR-15 and a M-16/M-4? And don't give me that crap about the AR must being a sporting rifle. You may be right but the sport animal it was designed to assault is human. All other uses are secondary.

So you agree that the AR-15 is far from being any sort of Assault Weapon. THANK YOU!

Follow along kiddies.

We're told that it's important to have an AR-15 because it is a good gun for shooting squirrels...

We're also told that it's not a good self defense weapon (there are many much better)...

And that the main reason for having one is a "defense against the government"...but that it's not a military grade weapon.

Of course defending oneself against an actual military with a weapon that is admittedly not military grade sounds silly but then the entire gun hugger argument is pretty fucking silly so....

Oh and no...the gun huggers have no solution to mass shootings or gun violence because ...they just don't see it as a problem

That's your imagination. Of course it's a problem. The question is if it can be solved. Our stance is that disarming the public and even the removal of AR's will not solve anything. It would only make people like yourself feel better.

But even if you could accomplish either of those things, and the next mass shooting takes place, you will want to advance to the next step, and the next, and the next.

That is where we really stand.

The only thing we can do is actually a social problem. Yah, I know, I type social and you transpose "Socialist" over it. But social change has nothing to do with a bunch of commies. Here are some steps that have helped here, at the permission of the Voters

1. Put in detectors right on the front door of the School, or any public gathering place. This stops even handguns from being brought in. Yah, I know, there are still stupid kids that try and bring in their Daddys handgun out of kicks but the get bagged very quickly and the gun gets confiscated by the Police to never be returned. The Onus is on the Parents in this case. And put well trained Armed Security on that Gate. It prevents or slows down firearms being brought into the public areas where you have no choice but to have as a Gun Free Zone.

2. Educate the general public. In Texas, you may see people walking around on a hot sunny dry day wearing Rain Coats or Dusters. Here, if you see that, the Cops are called if you are within 1000 feet of a School. The Cops respond. 3 times the cops have been called. 2 of the times, it was a stupid fashion statement that I doubt if that student will ever do again. The 3rd time, under that Rain Coat was an AR and 4 30 round mags. The School didn't call it in. A concerned Citizen called it in and the Cops took all 3 as serious as a heart attack.

You don't need every Teacher Armed. Right after the States Board of Education approved that the Teachers can be armed, the Teachers Association along with the PTAs turned it down. There have been accidental discharged by teachers in schools that have done this. And if you same one life then you should do it. There are other methods.

There are other methods that can be used at the same time. If you want to see them, google Colorado Firearms Regulations. When you total it all together, you end up with a much safter place.

No school that I'm aware of has ever created policy of mandatory armed teachers. It's a leftist lie if that's what's out there. Armed faculty is an option that only those interested may participate. Even then, most of the time the requirements are a lot of training beyond just having a CCW permit.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We get to keep our AR 15. Go ahead and cry you pussies.

You wil never ever EVER get another "assault weapons" ban. That was your best shot and it turned oht to be a huge loser.

Scared? GOOD. Fuck you.



We really need to break up this shitty, dead union. I do not want to share a nation with all these gun-grabbing fucktards. I fucking hate them. They are not human beings. They have no value and must be eliminated forever.

.

You don't get to keep your ARs in certain Cities. And if it' keeps being used as the primary Mass Shooting Tool, look for at least a few states to follow. If you want to keep your AR and continue to be a law abiding citizen I suggest you work on the social issues of the AR Cult which you are a member of.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You are a lost cause. The ONLY thing the 2nd amendment does is limit the Feds.

That is, after all, the entire purpose of our Constitution. Much to the exasperation of Democrats.

So it's all the Dems fault. Thank you for verifying that it's always someone elses fault for your own plight. And NEVER take an responsibility since that would not be Manly.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You will agree that a M-16 is an assault rifle, right? And that definition has nothing to do with the A in the AR. It's used to assault in a war condition and it's pretty damned good at it. It's normally used in it's single shot setting because it just wastes ammo otherwise. So now you have a single shot M-16. Can you tell me the difference between an AR-15 and a M-16/M-4? And don't give me that crap about the AR must being a sporting rifle. You may be right but the sport animal it was designed to assault is human. All other uses are secondary.

So you agree that the AR-15 is far from being any sort of Assault Weapon. THANK YOU!

Follow along kiddies.

We're told that it's important to have an AR-15 because it is a good gun for shooting squirrels...

We're also told that it's not a good self defense weapon (there are many much better)...

And that the main reason for having one is a "defense against the government"...but that it's not a military grade weapon.

Of course defending oneself against an actual military with a weapon that is admittedly not military grade sounds silly but then the entire gun hugger argument is pretty fucking silly so....

Oh and no...the gun huggers have no solution to mass shootings or gun violence because ...they just don't see it as a problem

That's your imagination. Of course it's a problem. The question is if it can be solved. Our stance is that disarming the public and even the removal of AR's will not solve anything. It would only make people like yourself feel better.

But even if you could accomplish either of those things, and the next mass shooting takes place, you will want to advance to the next step, and the next, and the next.

That is where we really stand.

The only thing we can do is actually a social problem. Yah, I know, I type social and you transpose "Socialist" over it. But social change has nothing to do with a bunch of commies. Here are some steps that have helped here, at the permission of the Voters

1. Put in detectors right on the front door of the School, or any public gathering place. This stops even handguns from being brought in. Yah, I know, there are still stupid kids that try and bring in their Daddys handgun out of kicks but the get bagged very quickly and the gun gets confiscated by the Police to never be returned. The Onus is on the Parents in this case. And put well trained Armed Security on that Gate. It prevents or slows down firearms being brought into the public areas where you have no choice but to have as a Gun Free Zone.

2. Educate the general public. In Texas, you may see people walking around on a hot sunny dry day wearing Rain Coats or Dusters. Here, if you see that, the Cops are called if you are within 1000 feet of a School. The Cops respond. 3 times the cops have been called. 2 of the times, it was a stupid fashion statement that I doubt if that student will ever do again. The 3rd time, under that Rain Coat was an AR and 4 30 round mags. The School didn't call it in. A concerned Citizen called it in and the Cops took all 3 as serious as a heart attack.

You don't need every Teacher Armed. Right after the States Board of Education approved that the Teachers can be armed, the Teachers Association along with the PTAs turned it down. There have been accidental discharged by teachers in schools that have done this. And if you same one life then you should do it. There are other methods.

There are other methods that can be used at the same time. If you want to see them, google Colorado Firearms Regulations. When you total it all together, you end up with a much safter place.

No school that I'm aware of has ever created policy of mandatory armed teachers. It's a leftist lie if that's what's out there. Armed faculty is an option that only those interested may participate. Even then, most of the time the requirements are a lot of training beyond just having a CCW permit.

No, not mandatory. But enough have done Voluntary to show that it's not a good idea. There are better methods and most schools around here have adopted those methods. If you want to mass shoot and there are not student so shoot and all the doors into a large area are made of heavy metal and electronically locked remotely then you really can't have much of a mass shooting. While you are running around trying to find a way in, SWAT is coming in the front door. Or it might be a bunch of pissed off cops with guns that are pissed off that you interrupted their Donut Break.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Ban cars. And forks. And knives. And rocks. And straws... Oh, wait...

I would much rather just ban you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you agree that the AR-15 is far from being any sort of Assault Weapon. THANK YOU!

Follow along kiddies.

We're told that it's important to have an AR-15 because it is a good gun for shooting squirrels...

We're also told that it's not a good self defense weapon (there are many much better)...

And that the main reason for having one is a "defense against the government"...but that it's not a military grade weapon.

Of course defending oneself against an actual military with a weapon that is admittedly not military grade sounds silly but then the entire gun hugger argument is pretty fucking silly so....

Oh and no...the gun huggers have no solution to mass shootings or gun violence because ...they just don't see it as a problem

That's your imagination. Of course it's a problem. The question is if it can be solved. Our stance is that disarming the public and even the removal of AR's will not solve anything. It would only make people like yourself feel better.

But even if you could accomplish either of those things, and the next mass shooting takes place, you will want to advance to the next step, and the next, and the next.

That is where we really stand.

What we have here is too fringe groups yelling at each other while they are so LOUD that the rest of us have trouble discussing anything. You people aren't necessarily right, you are just LOUD.

Well......loud is how you are heard. The left is loud via MSM. We don't have that, so we need to yell louder. All we really have is AM radio and Fox news. The MSM, Hollywood, education, the internet is all dominated by the left.

But because we yell louder doesn't mean we are wrong either.

In an 8 hour period in there, I saw just a couple or three posts by a few people. But there were 64 posts by the same 4 people trying to yell down everyone else though insulting posts. Your bunch tries to bury everyone elses inputs. It's hard to weed through all the Insulting Posts to get to the meat of the subject. Once your posts goes into the loud venue, people just stop reading it and your real message is lost whether its right or not.

So what you are saying is the left does not "yell?"

What you're really upset about is not the number of posts, but that you are outnumbered. The majority on this subject are pro-gun. Therefore for every one post a leftist makes, it's battled with four opposition posts regardless of who posts them. Insults? That comes from both sides if you've been here long enough to realize it. I object to insulting posts unless one is reacting to a personal attack. I do that myself, but I never draw first blood.

I like civil discussions when it comes to politics. Insults are teen chat room exchanges. I avoid participating with flamers if possible. Speaking for myself only of course, I conduct myself here as if we were discussing issues at a bar or club in person. I don't believe in hiding behind a keyboard and tossing insults at people that may be 500 miles or more from where I live.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you agree that the AR-15 is far from being any sort of Assault Weapon. THANK YOU!

Follow along kiddies.

We're told that it's important to have an AR-15 because it is a good gun for shooting squirrels...

We're also told that it's not a good self defense weapon (there are many much better)...

And that the main reason for having one is a "defense against the government"...but that it's not a military grade weapon.

Of course defending oneself against an actual military with a weapon that is admittedly not military grade sounds silly but then the entire gun hugger argument is pretty fucking silly so....

Oh and no...the gun huggers have no solution to mass shootings or gun violence because ...they just don't see it as a problem

That's your imagination. Of course it's a problem. The question is if it can be solved. Our stance is that disarming the public and even the removal of AR's will not solve anything. It would only make people like yourself feel better.

But even if you could accomplish either of those things, and the next mass shooting takes place, you will want to advance to the next step, and the next, and the next.

That is where we really stand.

The only thing we can do is actually a social problem. Yah, I know, I type social and you transpose "Socialist" over it. But social change has nothing to do with a bunch of commies. Here are some steps that have helped here, at the permission of the Voters

1. Put in detectors right on the front door of the School, or any public gathering place. This stops even handguns from being brought in. Yah, I know, there are still stupid kids that try and bring in their Daddys handgun out of kicks but the get bagged very quickly and the gun gets confiscated by the Police to never be returned. The Onus is on the Parents in this case. And put well trained Armed Security on that Gate. It prevents or slows down firearms being brought into the public areas where you have no choice but to have as a Gun Free Zone.

2. Educate the general public. In Texas, you may see people walking around on a hot sunny dry day wearing Rain Coats or Dusters. Here, if you see that, the Cops are called if you are within 1000 feet of a School. The Cops respond. 3 times the cops have been called. 2 of the times, it was a stupid fashion statement that I doubt if that student will ever do again. The 3rd time, under that Rain Coat was an AR and 4 30 round mags. The School didn't call it in. A concerned Citizen called it in and the Cops took all 3 as serious as a heart attack.

You don't need every Teacher Armed. Right after the States Board of Education approved that the Teachers can be armed, the Teachers Association along with the PTAs turned it down. There have been accidental discharged by teachers in schools that have done this. And if you same one life then you should do it. There are other methods.

There are other methods that can be used at the same time. If you want to see them, google Colorado Firearms Regulations. When you total it all together, you end up with a much safter place.

No school that I'm aware of has ever created policy of mandatory armed teachers. It's a leftist lie if that's what's out there. Armed faculty is an option that only those interested may participate. Even then, most of the time the requirements are a lot of training beyond just having a CCW permit.

No, not mandatory. But enough have done Voluntary to show that it's not a good idea. There are better methods and most schools around here have adopted those methods. If you want to mass shoot and there are not student so shoot and all the doors into a large area are made of heavy metal and electronically locked remotely then you really can't have much of a mass shooting. While you are running around trying to find a way in, SWAT is coming in the front door. Or it might be a bunch of pissed off cops with guns that are pissed off that you interrupted their Donut Break.

The beauty of CCW licenses is that a possible attacker does not know who is armed and who is not.

For instance, schools have been attacked in the past even though they had armed security. However armed security is obvious. They have uniforms, they of course are open carry, they usually position themselves in one place, and their daily routines can be tracked by a possible attacker.

When a kook makes a plan to attack other people, they like to know where they stand. As I just mentioned, a student could monitor the activities of an armed guard. They can't do that with an armed teacher because they don't know who is armed or not. Creating this uncertainty is what can throw them off or even make them abort their mission.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Follow along kiddies.

We're told that it's important to have an AR-15 because it is a good gun for shooting squirrels...

We're also told that it's not a good self defense weapon (there are many much better)...

And that the main reason for having one is a "defense against the government"...but that it's not a military grade weapon.

Of course defending oneself against an actual military with a weapon that is admittedly not military grade sounds silly but then the entire gun hugger argument is pretty fucking silly so....

Oh and no...the gun huggers have no solution to mass shootings or gun violence because ...they just don't see it as a problem

That's your imagination. Of course it's a problem. The question is if it can be solved. Our stance is that disarming the public and even the removal of AR's will not solve anything. It would only make people like yourself feel better.

But even if you could accomplish either of those things, and the next mass shooting takes place, you will want to advance to the next step, and the next, and the next.

That is where we really stand.

What we have here is too fringe groups yelling at each other while they are so LOUD that the rest of us have trouble discussing anything. You people aren't necessarily right, you are just LOUD.

Well......loud is how you are heard. The left is loud via MSM. We don't have that, so we need to yell louder. All we really have is AM radio and Fox news. The MSM, Hollywood, education, the internet is all dominated by the left.

But because we yell louder doesn't mean we are wrong either.

In an 8 hour period in there, I saw just a couple or three posts by a few people. But there were 64 posts by the same 4 people trying to yell down everyone else though insulting posts. Your bunch tries to bury everyone elses inputs. It's hard to weed through all the Insulting Posts to get to the meat of the subject. Once your posts goes into the loud venue, people just stop reading it and your real message is lost whether its right or not.

So what you are saying is the left does not "yell?"

What you're really upset about is not the number of posts, but that you are outnumbered. The majority on this subject are pro-gun. Therefore for every one post a leftist makes, it's battled with four opposition posts regardless of who posts them. Insults? That comes from both sides if you've been here long enough to realize it. I object to insulting posts unless one is reacting to a personal attack. I do that myself, but I never draw first blood.

I like civil discussions when it comes to politics. Insults are teen chat room exchanges. I avoid participating with flamers if possible. Speaking for myself only of course, I conduct myself here as if we were discussing issues at a bar or club in person. I don't believe in hiding behind a keyboard and tossing insults at people that may be 500 miles or more from where I live.

I am so difficult to handle there ain't enough of you to go around. So you just get LOUD. I am not loud but I do have a message without the petty insults to try and make myself look smarter, better looking, etc.. I have noticed that you are easier to read than most. I just don't particularly agree with everything you have to say. But, hey, that's what makes life interesting.

Yes, the Left Yells but I don't. But I find, in here, the major source of "Yelling" is from the fringe group of guncrazies. Rather than discuss and actually coming up with a solution (and yes, any solution I see I will pass on to other voters) they start in insulting and degrading the other person. I can't speak for MSN since I don't listen to that. I can't speak for Talk Radio since I don't listen to that. And I can't speak for
Pauxsnews since I don't watch nor listen to that. I speak for myself and the community for which I live in who have made changes to confront all the evils that are being shouted out to cover up an chance of coming to a solution. Newsflash: There is always a solution for most problems if we stop yelling and insulting each other long enough.

Right now, the Right needs to clean it's act in here and out of here. Do it before you lose more than you can afford to lose. And put a cork on the NRA meddling in local elections. One of the reasons so many Dems were elected into the house is that the NRA put money against the other side and the voters said enough. And the people voted in are Moderates. That should scare the hell out of everyone that is in the fringe on both sides.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Follow along kiddies.

We're told that it's important to have an AR-15 because it is a good gun for shooting squirrels...

We're also told that it's not a good self defense weapon (there are many much better)...

And that the main reason for having one is a "defense against the government"...but that it's not a military grade weapon.

Of course defending oneself against an actual military with a weapon that is admittedly not military grade sounds silly but then the entire gun hugger argument is pretty fucking silly so....

Oh and no...the gun huggers have no solution to mass shootings or gun violence because ...they just don't see it as a problem

That's your imagination. Of course it's a problem. The question is if it can be solved. Our stance is that disarming the public and even the removal of AR's will not solve anything. It would only make people like yourself feel better.

But even if you could accomplish either of those things, and the next mass shooting takes place, you will want to advance to the next step, and the next, and the next.

That is where we really stand.

The only thing we can do is actually a social problem. Yah, I know, I type social and you transpose "Socialist" over it. But social change has nothing to do with a bunch of commies. Here are some steps that have helped here, at the permission of the Voters

1. Put in detectors right on the front door of the School, or any public gathering place. This stops even handguns from being brought in. Yah, I know, there are still stupid kids that try and bring in their Daddys handgun out of kicks but the get bagged very quickly and the gun gets confiscated by the Police to never be returned. The Onus is on the Parents in this case. And put well trained Armed Security on that Gate. It prevents or slows down firearms being brought into the public areas where you have no choice but to have as a Gun Free Zone.

2. Educate the general public. In Texas, you may see people walking around on a hot sunny dry day wearing Rain Coats or Dusters. Here, if you see that, the Cops are called if you are within 1000 feet of a School. The Cops respond. 3 times the cops have been called. 2 of the times, it was a stupid fashion statement that I doubt if that student will ever do again. The 3rd time, under that Rain Coat was an AR and 4 30 round mags. The School didn't call it in. A concerned Citizen called it in and the Cops took all 3 as serious as a heart attack.

You don't need every Teacher Armed. Right after the States Board of Education approved that the Teachers can be armed, the Teachers Association along with the PTAs turned it down. There have been accidental discharged by teachers in schools that have done this. And if you same one life then you should do it. There are other methods.

There are other methods that can be used at the same time. If you want to see them, google Colorado Firearms Regulations. When you total it all together, you end up with a much safter place.

No school that I'm aware of has ever created policy of mandatory armed teachers. It's a leftist lie if that's what's out there. Armed faculty is an option that only those interested may participate. Even then, most of the time the requirements are a lot of training beyond just having a CCW permit.

No, not mandatory. But enough have done Voluntary to show that it's not a good idea. There are better methods and most schools around here have adopted those methods. If you want to mass shoot and there are not student so shoot and all the doors into a large area are made of heavy metal and electronically locked remotely then you really can't have much of a mass shooting. While you are running around trying to find a way in, SWAT is coming in the front door. Or it might be a bunch of pissed off cops with guns that are pissed off that you interrupted their Donut Break.

The beauty of CCW licenses is that a possible attacker does not know who is armed and who is not.

For instance, schools have been attacked in the past even though they had armed security. However armed security is obvious. They have uniforms, they of course are open carry, they usually position themselves in one place, and their daily routines can be tracked by a possible attacker.

When a kook makes a plan to attack other people, they like to know where they stand. As I just mentioned, a student could monitor the activities of an armed guard. They can't do that with an armed teacher because they don't know who is armed or not. Creating this uncertainty is what can throw them off or even make them abort their mission.

Or you can have only one way in where you have a detector and at least one highly trained and armed Security Guard where he can instigate a school lockdown with the touch of a button. Then if you get past that, any Teacher can instigate that lockdown with a touch of a button that is only available to Teachers and Faculty. You have to have a Mass to do a Mass Shooting. While you are running around trying to find a way in, the cops are notified and are coming enmass. The potential shooter just disturbed the cops Donut Break and they are going to be pissed off to hell and back. The Kook can plan till the cows come home but chances are, he will give up, go home or do something really stupid and still try to do the Mass Shooting. Talk about frustrating.

The Teachers aren't paid enough as it is. Yet you want them to go get trained to the point they can enter a battle field and function? And yes, one person with an AR and 4 30 round mags is a battlefield all by themselves to a SillyVillian. Unless you get continuous stress training, chances are,you are either going to start blasting away which becomes a real problem in a target rich situation but most likely you are going to freeze too long (hesitation is the normal human reaction) and that gun you have becomes worthless fast. Isn't it better to just remove the Mass from the Mass Shooting if you have the choice? The Teachers are much better at removing the masses than getting into a firefight.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Okay, so any level gun control is bad which is of course retarded on its own, but the right can’t even think of any alternatives to curbing gun violence. Saying “no” to everything accomplishes absolutely nothing. It’s astounding we are still at square one.

Oh, they do. Their solution is to arm everyone, because apparently this will somehow work. Yeah, more guns will mean more people die, which will then destroy humans in the US and when they're all dead, there won't be any gun crime.

Funny I never said anything about arming everyone
I do know disarming everyone (who would obey the law) won't lower the murder rate

'Because I disagree with most of what you have to say (your fruitcake logic) does that mean that I want to disarm everyone? No, just the crazy people and it appears you may fit that definition.

It's the classic camel's nose under the tent

So you ban the Ar 15 then the next school shooter uses a Mini 14 then you want to ban that gun so the Mini 14 gets banned and the next school shooter uses a different semiauto then you want to ban that because it was used in a school shooting etc etc etc

Wrong.

But your post does fail as a classic slippery slope fallacy.

In fact, in jurisdictions where AR platform rifles and carbines have been restricted, no efforts have been made to restrict compliant platforms such as the Mini 14 or SU 16.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

77777

Okay, so any level gun control is bad which is of course retarded on its own, but the right can’t even think of any alternatives to curbing gun violence. Saying “no” to everything accomplishes absolutely nothing. It’s astounding we are still at square one.

Oh, they do. Their solution is to arm everyone, because apparently this will somehow work. Yeah, more guns will mean more people die, which will then destroy humans in the US and when they're all dead, there won't be any gun crime.

Funny I never said anything about arming everyone
I do know disarming everyone (who would obey the law) won't lower the murder rate

'Because I disagree with most of what you have to say (your fruitcake logic) does that mean that I want to disarm everyone? No, just the crazy people and it appears you may fit that definition.

It's the classic camel's nose under the tent

So you ban the Ar 15 then the next school shooter uses a Mini 14 then you want to ban that gun so the Mini 14 gets banned and the next school shooter uses a different semiauto then you want to ban that because it was used in a school shooting etc etc etc

Wrong.

But your post does fail as a classic slippery slope fallacy.

In fact, in jurisdictions where AR platform rifles and carbines have been restricted, no efforts have been made to restrict compliant platforms such as the Mini 14 or SU 16.

A community can ban any firearms but it MUST spell out the weapons. The ones that have failed all have been worded where it might apply to many other firearms as well. The ones that have succeeded and back by Federal Courts specifically spell out the exact weapon. The Phrase, "AR and it's various Clones" rather than describing the weapons is the way it's done now. And it sticks.