What's it gonna take for this to end, people?

[Blues Man]

whats it going to take to end the ban that stops me from buying brand spanking new fully automatic military style weaponry ?

STOP OPPRESSING ME!
I demand my civil rights!

FYI you are not banned from owing fully automatic weapons you just have to jump through a couple extra hoops and pay an additional tax

 

[BrokeLoser]

DISCLAIMER: This opinion in no way indicates my support or lack thereof of an assault weapons ban.

Now the opinion.

I feel that if you have an assault weapon, you should be able to keep it once a potential assault weapons ban goes into effect. However, if one were to take effect, you shouldn't be able buy any more. It seems like to me you are not being prevented from bearing the arms you purchased previously.

KEEP READING

On the other hand, the muskets and other long rifles used during the Revolutionary War were essentially what assault rifles are today: the top of the line weapons of their era. Presumably, the founders foresaw the use of even more advanced rifles for self defense by the citizenry, hence the Second Amendment.

So, two arguments. One question:

Is there a middle ground? What compromise can we reach to stop crazed mass shooters?

And no "enforce the laws we already have" wont work this time. The Odessa shooter exploited a loophole to get the weapon he murdered those people with.

Molon Abe? Please. Come and take them? Please. Stop trying to be the tough guy/gal you aren't.

Declare the NRA (and thus all 5.5 million of its members) as a domestic terror group like the city of San Francisco just did? Please. PLEASE. What the actual f**k man? Put your fake emotions away, you aren't convincing anyone.

Be reminded that if I have an opinion of my own on this subject, I will share it. Do not apply opinions to me. If you do, you will be ignored, immediately. Thank you, kindly.

Okay, let the cage match begin.

Weird huh...who would have thought this shit would happen?
The disgusting pieces of shits of the Left vilify God / Christianity, glamorize / normalize all that is criminal, shameful, indecent and immoral...they destroy a likeminded society by FORCING tens of millions of disgusting thirdworlders on real Americans and here we sit hostile and hateful as fuck.
What's it gonna take for this to end, people?
Send all wetbacks home, shove the pole puffers, rug munchers and men in dresses back in the closet, inject Christianity back into public schools, make God cool again and restore all things that are/were OLD AMERICA.
Simple shit.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Mentally ill people are less likely to commit violent crimes, acting like they are a problem is actually incredibly ignorant, especially since the data is freely available to you. There's really no excuse.

I'm curious, why do all the mass murderers in America seem to have a history of it? Regardless of what was used to kill?

I'm going to pretend that you didn't just cut out the vast majority of my response, choosing not to respond to it. Usually when someone does that, it gives me the feeling that they're not actually interested in honest discussion.

Because mental illness is completely arbitrary, as I've been explaining to Billy. Being depressed is a mental illness, not wanting to follow the directions of an "authority figure" is considered a mental illness, etc. Besides that, when anything is covered in the state-run media, it's to push the agenda of the Government, so in many cases it'll either be a false flag, or misinformation will be attached. A good example is the recent Walmart shooting, where the guy apparently changed clothes before being caught, and managed to shoot 30 people, with a 30 round gun, with no spare ammo on him.

I don't believe anything I see or hear from the corporate media, thus, I haven't watched it in years.

You have peaked my curiosity.

"A good example is the recent Walmart shooting, where the guy apparently changed clothes before being caught, and managed to shoot 30 people, with a 30 round gun, with no spare ammo on him."

I respect you as one of the more intelligent posters on this board, how do you come by this analysis?

Thanks.

A friend of mine recognized the weapon as a 30-Round weapon(AK-47 if I recall correctly), and the man's clothes were too tight and had no bulges for the spare ammo. The Government-run media reported that 30 people had been injured or killed.


Here's a video some friends of mine did on the subject.

 

[MisterBeale]

Mentally ill people are less likely to commit violent crimes, acting like they are a problem is actually incredibly ignorant, especially since the data is freely available to you. There's really no excuse.

I'm curious, why do all the mass murderers in America seem to have a history of it? Regardless of what was used to kill?

I'm going to pretend that you didn't just cut out the vast majority of my response, choosing not to respond to it. Usually when someone does that, it gives me the feeling that they're not actually interested in honest discussion.

Because mental illness is completely arbitrary, as I've been explaining to Billy. Being depressed is a mental illness, not wanting to follow the directions of an "authority figure" is considered a mental illness, etc. Besides that, when anything is covered in the state-run media, it's to push the agenda of the Government, so in many cases it'll either be a false flag, or misinformation will be attached. A good example is the recent Walmart shooting, where the guy apparently changed clothes before being caught, and managed to shoot 30 people, with a 30 round gun, with no spare ammo on him.

I don't believe anything I see or hear from the corporate media, thus, I haven't watched it in years.

You have peaked my curiosity.

"A good example is the recent Walmart shooting, where the guy apparently changed clothes before being caught, and managed to shoot 30 people, with a 30 round gun, with no spare ammo on him."

I respect you as one of the more intelligent posters on this board, how do you come by this analysis?

Thanks.

A friend of mine recognized the weapon as a 30-Round weapon(AK-47 if I recall correctly), and the man's clothes were too tight and had no bulges for the spare ammo. The Government-run media reported that 30 people had been injured or killed.


Here's a video some friends of mine did on the subject.

 

[DamnDude]

The problem isn't the guns, it's the people. The sanctity of human life has been devalued by leftists.

Hardly anyone has an "assault rifle".

Owning an assault rifle requires a Class III license.

So, what does the law classify as an assault rifle? I, and primarily Jitss would like to know. Seemingly there is no such thing as an "assault rifle".

A select-fire rifle capable of full-auto fire.

Reopening Mental Hospitals would go a long way. Other countries operate Sanitariums.

Proper Mental health care would have prevented Adam Lanza and Nikolas Cruz from hurting people.

Neither of them belonged out in free society.

Mental health in the United States has nose dived because being institutionalized had/has such negative conatations associated with it. So many people would rather be known as an ex-convict than have it known they spent any time in a mental hospital.... Willingly or otherwise. There are many things that factors in mental health, with one being the belief (falsely,) there is better and more manageable care when the patient is in familiar surroundings. The 2 indiviuals you named may or may not have benefitted from being institutionalized, and in my opinion should have been. There would have been 45 souls better off for it.

The current laws, as they sat at the times of their respective shootings, should have prevented them from the access they had.
Nancy Lanza should not have had wepons in her house since he was living with her. Anyone who takes someone recently released from prison cannot have firearms present in the domicile where an ex con, or someone deemed unsafe with firearms around to have them.
In the other case, he should not have been allowed by the NICS system to purchase. With the many, many ocurrances of domestic violence the Broward County Sheriff's office alone had, much less other law enforcement entities, he should have been on the no buy list.
Both cases are an example of the current laws not working.... Not because they don't work, but because someone didn't do their job and make sure the laws in place were being followed. Another example would be the Sutherland Springs shooter... Shouldn't have been allowed to purchase, but he as well slipped through because someone didn't do their job of getting him into the system as a no go.
There are many issues on many levels. If the laws are in place but not enforced, it's on the local authorities, if the information isn't entered for law enforcement to enforce the laws then that's on the bureaucracy.

 

[bendog]

Is having a person with mental illness diagnosis in your home?

 

[DamnDude]

Is having a person with mental illness diagnosis in your home?

Whom is this asked of?
Is it what?
I'm not understanding your question here.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

First, I suggest strengthening laws involving people diagnosed with DSM-IV disorders which include anger management. People like me. I am noticing a trend in which the shooter was triggered by a negative life event or by reckless political rhetoric. Political rhetoric can spark uncontrollable anger in some, leading to what happened in El Paso.

In Odessa, the killer was fired from his job just hours before his rampage.

Do you not see the correlation? An inability to control negative thoughts and emotions. Mental illness.

My solution isn't perfect, I know. But we need to start somewhere. Start with mental health.

This depends on what is meant by “strengthening laws.”

One cannot be designated a prohibited person solely due to mental illness absent due process and adjudication by a magistrate that an individual poses a threat to himself and others; any measure seeking to do so would be invalidated by the courts as un-Constitutional.

The appropriate approach with regard to mental illness and gun crime and violence would be to ensure that every American have access to affordable healthcare – including mental healthcare.

Unfortunately there is significant political opposition to ensuring all Americans have access to affordable healthcare.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is nothing to be done.

The establishment only wants one solution.

The people will not give up anymore of their freedom, because to give up anymore, means to lose it all.



I could give you a lot of solutions, but folks that stand with the state don't want to hear it, they just want government to have the right to take freedom away, they don't want to hear anything else.

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

No one advocates for anyone ‘giving up’ freedom.

As long as governments enact measures consistent with Constitutional case law, no freedom has been ‘given up,’ no rights ‘violated.’

And this has nothing to do with ‘the state’ or ‘the establishment’; there is no nefarious conspiracy by government to ‘take away’ freedom – the notion is delusional nonsense.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What determines a mental illness?

Provable, peer reviewed and relevant science. Data and observation. Good governments use science in situations like these, not baseless rhetoric or political motives.

Any kind of behavior can be considered a mental illness, like Oppositional Defiant Disorder.

There's no such thing as a "Good Government", that's an oxymoron.

Nonsense.

Government is perfectly capable of doing good – and has done so; the problem is individuals of bad faith who oppose sound, responsible governance to advance their fear, greed, hate, and wrongheaded political dogma.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
There it is folks. Pure and simple.

Alright then.

This is what I am getting:

Do nothing about gun violence, because "muh rights". And if we do something, let's take it completely too far.

Thank you to those who offered reasonable responses to my thread. And also, thanks to all of you who made the point of my thread.

My conclusion:

There is no solution. Neither side wants one.

Actually not.

And it’s incorrect to perceive the issue in a binary context – as there being ‘sides.’

There is a solution, the problem is we lack the courage to admit some difficult truths about American society and the will to do the hard work needed to realize a solution.

Indeed, there is no one solution – the ‘fix’ for gun crime and violence must be multifaceted, involving the law, government, mental health treatment, sound public policy, and the political will to implement the policies designed to address the problem.

It’s also not a matter of an unwillingness to compromise; the successful solution to the problem of gun crime and violence will render irrelevant the availability of guns or the types of guns available. The successful solution to the problem of gun crime and violence will have little to do with the actual regulation of firearms, if any.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

OKTexas Like I said, there seems to be no clear cut solution to this problem. Even with preferred elected officials in our government we still cannot get the solutions we want to pass, nor are there any willing to enforce existing law.

So, what are we left with? An impasse that nobody is willing to breach.

I'm comfortable with the law we have, enforcement is the key. Unfortunately the trend now days seems to be softening punishment instead of holding criminals responsible.

we still cannot get the solutions we want to pass

First don't include me in that ubiquitous "we", but what would you like to see passed, be specific.

.

Forgive me, I have transgressed on your sensibilities.

What I want passed are laws pertaining to mental health (see post #2). If there are loopholes that exist in our gun laws, close them. But alas, that will be met with resistance too. Essentially, our government is powerless to do anything. Either for lack of want for enforcing existing law, or for amending them to account for mental illness.

Is it wrong of me to want this all done without infringing on the constitutional rights of others? Or am I being naive?

A law or measure isn’t un-Constitutional until the Supreme Court says it is.

The issue isn’t rights being ‘infringed’ – rather, the issue is the efficacy of a given law or measure.

For example, an AWB doesn’t violate the Second Amendment because the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of such a ‘ban’; an AWB is unwarranted because it won’t work, it’s bad law, ineffective and pointless.

The solution to this problem isn’t more laws and measures regulating or placing limits on firearms – there is no quick fix, no one solution, no panacea to all gun crime and violence.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

What determines a mental illness?

Provable, peer reviewed and relevant science. Data and observation. Good governments use science in situations like these, not baseless rhetoric or political motives.

Any kind of behavior can be considered a mental illness, like Oppositional Defiant Disorder.

There's no such thing as a "Good Government", that's an oxymoron.

Nonsense.

Government is perfectly capable of doing good – and has done so; the problem is individuals of bad faith who oppose sound, responsible governance to advance their fear, greed, hate, and wrongheaded political dogma.

Calling something sound and reasonable isn't an argument as to how it's sound and reasonable. You gave zero specifics, you merely made a statement.

Meanwhile, this "Sound and reasonable" government steals, assaults, kidnaps, and regularly infringes on the rights of innocent people. It dismembers babies, incinerates cats, and sends armies of people to go murder people half a world away for oil, and leaves their families in grief. They even, at points, locked people in cages for refusing.

While all of this happens, government worshipping sheep like you, claim that this behavior is totally fine just because the people who commit these heinous and evil deeds call themselves government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Pre-Crime? Red flag laws? Can somebody's mental health state be legislated? Can somebody's intentions be pre-determined?
When Walmart bans carrying guns in their stores, who will be bringing guns into Walmart? The good guys for protection, or the bad guys for mass murder?
No easy answers here. I can only add that taking guns away from folks who have them exclusively for self defense is not the answer.

Maybe there are people who are using firearms for self defense, that are proven to be mentally unstable.

Do you want them to have any firearms if they are prone to commit suicide? Do you want them to have any firearms if they are proven to be a safety risk to others?

Where is the cutoff? When do we say "it isn't okay for you to have a gun"?

It's irrelevant if someone commits suicide with a gun and should not be part of the discussion.

Eh? So it is okay for someone like me, a mentally unstable person, who has attempted suicide twice in his life, to get a gun?

Make it easier for me to kill myself?

...

The thought sickens me.

The issue isn’t whether or not you should have access to a gun given your mental illness.

The issue is whether or not you have access to affordable mental healthcare rendering it irrelevant whether you have access to a gun or not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

DISCLAIMER: This opinion in no way indicates my support or lack thereof of an assault weapons ban.

Now the opinion.

I feel that if you have an assault weapon, you should be able to keep it once a potential assault weapons ban goes into effect. However, if one were to take effect, you shouldn't be able buy any more. It seems like to me you are not being prevented from bearing the arms you purchased previously.

KEEP READING

On the other hand, the muskets and other long rifles used during the Revolutionary War were essentially what assault rifles are today: the top of the line weapons of their era. Presumably, the founders foresaw the use of even more advanced rifles for self defense by the citizenry, hence the Second Amendment.

So, two arguments. One question:

Is there a middle ground? What compromise can we reach to stop crazed mass shooters?

And no "enforce the laws we already have" wont work this time. The Odessa shooter exploited a loophole to get the weapon he murdered those people with.

Molon Abe? Please. Come and take them? Please. Stop trying to be the tough guy/gal you aren't.

Declare the NRA (and thus all 5.5 million of its members) as a domestic terror group like the city of San Francisco just did? Please. PLEASE. What the actual f**k? Put your fake emotions away, you aren't convincing anyone.

Be reminded that if I have an opinion of my own on this subject, I will share it. Do not apply opinions to me. If you do, you will be ignored, immediately. Thank you, kindly.

Okay, let the cage match begin.

I’ll tell you this about the 2nd amendment: if the founding fathers knew that one day an assault rifle would invented, they would have made the amendment a lot more clear. Hell, it’s vague because they actually believed a goddamn musket was the best we could ever come up with.

I really don’t care that law-abiding citizens own guns because it has gotten to the point where people need guns. Too goddamn many wind up in the hands of criminals. If the country didn’t become so gun crazy to begin with, maybe the invention of guns would have been so much more limited to simple home protection and nothing else. Instead, this country has 11,000 deaths per year from guns - a rate that per capita far exceeds any other developed nation.

Republicans love guns simply because it gives them a false sense of manliness and toughness. If they didn’t have such childish minds, the 2nd amendment wouldn’t matter to them but instead they get butthurt about the slightest compromise.

All false and wrong.

They had what we would call assault rifles in the 18 the century meaning weapons which were breach loading and capable of rapid fire and they were used against us in the Revolutionary war which means the founding fathers knew about them

They knew perfectly well technology was advancing and better weaponry being invented,

You demonstrate typical left wing ignorance of history,

Republicans love the right to own guns which is necessary always.

Actually this is wrong.

The possession of AR 15s is not within the scope of Second Amendment protections – or any other firearm designated by law to be an assault weapon.

If the Supreme Court should rule sometime in the future that the possession of AR 15s is within the scope of Second Amendment protections, it will be for the same reason that radio and television broadcasts are entitled to First Amendment protections, although neither existed during the 18th Century.

 

[Gracie]

DISCLAIMER: This opinion in no way indicates my support or lack thereof of an assault weapons ban.

Now the opinion.

I feel that if you have an assault weapon, you should be able to keep it once a potential assault weapons ban goes into effect. However, if one were to take effect, you shouldn't be able buy any more. It seems like to me you are not being prevented from bearing the arms you purchased previously.

KEEP READING

On the other hand, the muskets and other long rifles used during the Revolutionary War were essentially what assault rifles are today: the top of the line weapons of their era. Presumably, the founders foresaw the use of even more advanced rifles for self defense by the citizenry, hence the Second Amendment.

So, two arguments. One question:

Is there a middle ground? What compromise can we reach to stop crazed mass shooters?

And no "enforce the laws we already have" wont work this time. The Odessa shooter exploited a loophole to get the weapon he murdered those people with.

Molon Abe? Please. Come and take them? Please. Stop trying to be the tough guy/gal you aren't.

Declare the NRA (and thus all 5.5 million of its members) as a domestic terror group like the city of San Francisco just did? Please. PLEASE. What the actual f**k man? Put your fake emotions away, you aren't convincing anyone.

Be reminded that if I have an opinion of my own on this subject, I will share it. Do not apply opinions to me. If you do, you will be ignored, immediately. Thank you, kindly.

Okay, let the cage match begin.

I may not reply to most of your threads, but I enjoy reading them. You are a writer, Templar. You need to do OPs in Writers Corner. Call journalists for opinion pieces. Write a book. You are GOOD.

And..no comment on the topic. Just wanted to tell you that you should concentrate on writing MORE and not just here.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Pre-Crime? Red flag laws? Can somebody's mental health state be legislated? Can somebody's intentions be pre-determined?
When Walmart bans carrying guns in their stores, who will be bringing guns into Walmart? The good guys for protection, or the bad guys for mass murder?
No easy answers here. I can only add that taking guns away from folks who have them exclusively for self defense is not the answer.

Maybe there are people who are using firearms for self defense, that are proven to be mentally unstable.

Do you want them to have any firearms if they are prone to commit suicide? Do you want them to have any firearms if they are proven to be a safety risk to others?

Where is the cutoff? When do we say "it isn't okay for you to have a gun"?

It's irrelevant if someone commits suicide with a gun and should not be part of the discussion.

Eh? So it is okay for someone like me, a mentally unstable person, who has attempted suicide twice in his life, to get a gun?

Make it easier for me to kill myself?

...

The thought sickens me.

If the thought sickens you get off the pot and kill your self or forget about it.
I will be the one in the crowd telling a jumper to jump because if you don't care about your life I don't care about it, if you need a shoulder to cry on I'm not the one.

 

[XponentialChaos]

My conclusion:

There is no solution. Neither side wants one.

I want a solution...

 

[TemplarKormac]

DISCLAIMER: This opinion in no way indicates my support or lack thereof of an assault weapons ban.

Now the opinion.

I feel that if you have an assault weapon, you should be able to keep it once a potential assault weapons ban goes into effect. However, if one were to take effect, you shouldn't be able buy any more. It seems like to me you are not being prevented from bearing the arms you purchased previously.

KEEP READING

On the other hand, the muskets and other long rifles used during the Revolutionary War were essentially what assault rifles are today: the top of the line weapons of their era. Presumably, the founders foresaw the use of even more advanced rifles for self defense by the citizenry, hence the Second Amendment.

So, two arguments. One question:

Is there a middle ground? What compromise can we reach to stop crazed mass shooters?

And no "enforce the laws we already have" wont work this time. The Odessa shooter exploited a loophole to get the weapon he murdered those people with.

Molon Abe? Please. Come and take them? Please. Stop trying to be the tough guy/gal you aren't.

Declare the NRA (and thus all 5.5 million of its members) as a domestic terror group like the city of San Francisco just did? Please. PLEASE. What the actual f**k man? Put your fake emotions away, you aren't convincing anyone.

Be reminded that if I have an opinion of my own on this subject, I will share it. Do not apply opinions to me. If you do, you will be ignored, immediately. Thank you, kindly.

Okay, let the cage match begin.

I may not reply to most of your threads, but I enjoy reading them. You are a writer, Templar. You need to do OPs in Writers Corner. Call journalists for opinion pieces. Write a book. You are GOOD.

And..no comment on the topic. Just wanted to tell you that you should concentrate on writing MORE and not just here.

Thank you for your kind words, Gracie. I may just try that. Though, I'm putting my safety and security at risk when I drop an unpopular opinion on the masses. Oh well, notoriety doesn't come without risk I suppose.

 

[TemplarKormac]

My conclusion:

There is no solution. Neither side wants one.

I want a solution...

What solution specifically?