VET
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bid...-control-psaki
After two mass shootings recently, according to sources President Joe Biden has hinted on banning high capacity mags and “assault weapons” once again.
Would stripping the rights of millions of law abiding citizens be of benefit? Would it stop mass shootings? Hmm something to think about. Of course if we did this, it would have to benefit everyone not just mass shootings. One could argue the black on black crime rates would also fall
Knowledgeable Member
I’d say we’re screwed. Banning a type of gun just based on the way it looks makes no sense at all, but try explaining that to a Democrat. Sure you can ban magazines above 10 rounds but what are you accomplishing? It takes about 2 seconds to reload so basically a mass shooter will just have to bring more magazines. And I’ve been in a state with an “assault weapons” ban for some time now and I can go to the gun store and buy an AR15 that doesn’t have a pistol grip, threaded barrel, or adjustable stock. The gun functions exactly the same, it just looks different. Tell me what you are preventing by doing this?
I’m certainly not against background checks and harsh punishment for criminals who are caught possessing firearms but, background checks only work so well. Someone could go to a gun store and buy a gun perfectly legally, and then two years from now have a breakdown and go shoot up a mall or something.
At the end of the day personal protection is a personal responsibility. Anyone can snap at anytime, and it could happen anywhere, that’s the scary reality. Unfortunately the government wants to limit our ability to protect ourselves in the name of “public safety”. So we’re all just sitting ducks until this happens again, and then they’ll strip more of our rights away.
Anabolic Member
I don’t think black on black crime uses assault weapons as much as hand guns. Assault weapons seem to account for most of the “successful” mass shootings.
I don’t own an assault rifle and don’t really have a dog in the fight. I found it interesting that stores are putting a ban on carrying weapons into the store, as if someone who is planning a shooting cares about the rules.
IMO, of course banning assault rifles will lead to less successful mass shootings. Anyone can buy an assault rifle with an extended mag and go into a store and start dumping. Do I believe we should ban them? Hmm, don’t know. A gun is made to kill. It doesn’t distinguish between if the person using it has good intentions or not. Disenfranchising millions of responsible, sane assault rifle owners at the hands of a few mass shooters seems unfair. If I were one of the family members of the people killed by an assault rifle, I’m sure I’d be all for banning them...
Banned
Originally Posted by Test Monsterone
If you look at the number of people killed annually with ar-15s, I'm certain you will find it far lower than handguns, car accidents or knife stabbings.
Does that mean you then ban automobiles, handguns and knives? Where does it end?
If you want to "save lives" far more people die each year due to drug overdose, and abortion than gun violence, so why are democrats handing out needles to junkies and condoning drug use, and funding abortions?
Because "gun control " to the democrat party isn't about "saving lives" or even "controlling guns". It's about controlling people. And taking away the means to resist being controlled.
Anabolic Member
I don't think they want to control people any more than republicans want to control you by lying to you, making it harder to vote, and telling you that a fair election was fraudulent.
If anything, liberals and democrats in general want equal rights for everyone - but that means we have to play along nicely. The people who don't own guns and are not interested would tolerate them so long as they aren't used to harm innocent people. The same people who don't own guns understand that a knife is not the same as a gun, because a knife has other purposes besides killing and that a knife cannot be wielded and used to kill at the same speed and accuracy as a gun.
Additionally, a person not into guns may look at statistics and compare how many people have been protected by civilian assault rifle ownership vs how many were killed by civilian assault rifle violence. They would probably see that there are hardly any lives saved by an assault rifle, but many lives taken.
On top of that they could look at countries like Australia, where after assault rifles were banned, there hasn't been another mass shooting since.
So, I don't think you can say that democrats want to control people by taking their guns. That could only be true if they themselves owned guns but didn't want anyone else to own them. No, many people (probably the majority) don't even want to own assault rifles, or have the possibility that someone may own one and decide to shoot a bunch of people. Has nothing to do with control and everything to do with feeling safe in our society. Again, I can see both sides because I do and have owned hand guns.
Banned
When australia banned it's guns, home invasions increased at least two fold. Murder rate has not declined, not has violent crime.
Banned
From the most recent data I can find...
Are shooting deaths on the decline?
Yes, the number of gun-related homicides decreased by 57% between 1989-90 and 2013-14, according to the most recent official figures.
The number of people who died from gunshot wounds dropped by 63% in the same period.
Associate Prof Alpers said that the rate of gun-related crime had been "trending downwards since before 1996, but the rate of decline doubled after the law changes".
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-44105129 15 May 2018
Not sure from where your info is coming.
https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/c..._of_gun_deaths
I believe the law was passed in 1996.
Last edited by The Deadlifting Dog; 03-25-2021 at 05:06 AM.
- MONITOR -
Yeah. They just found other ways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_Australia
Knowledge Member on Prostate Cancer
As a former combat US Marine I have a historical fact to share that most military ppl learn as a recruit . Gun control of any kind point blank period is in direct violation of the 2nd amendment ? Why you may wonder ? I did not write the 2nd amendment and I cannot pick and choose what I want to like or dislike about the 2nd amendment . It was well thought out by many good men who had just sacrificed all they had to create this GREAT NATION , with wisdom and discussion they wrote the 2nd amendment for one reason ! There are many paper written back in the time regarding this amendment (The Jefferson Papers ) ( James Madison Papers ) Many more ! So opiniated young men I challenge you to educate yourselves as opposed to being democratic or republican and stop repeating what the talking heads on TV pour into you brain . Lies can never change facts . But a lie told long enough ppl begin to believe .Never give up the right to be free and say NO to the govt and stop looking for govt to take care of you . I am a part of neither party and closer to Librarian , but not even that I am a purist ? A Constitutionalist -- Give me liberty or give me death I will die a free man !
There have been crazies mass killings since the beginning of time before guns of any type . Point in statement is the 2nd amendment and it's rights given to a fee republic of ppl has noting to do with mass shootings multi round mags or the way a rifle looks ! Bottom line is the 2nd amendment was written so free men would have equal weaponry NEAR equal to the US Govt. for the purpose of protecting our rights as we the ppl to actually defend ourselves against an over reaching and out of control Govt. ........ Much like what we have now . Look how easily the Covid 19 scare changed our lives through Govt control . What if this is a test run and near required vaccines . = to near martial law ( Like what I say or not ) Any gun a free man owns is not intentioned by the 2nd amendment for any other reason than to keep and save our liberties and is rightfully owned with the intent to keep all men free ! End of discussion !
Superbowl XLIX Champs!
The biggest problem I have with alleged "conservatives" is that they think it's this "left/right" false paradigm. Democrats and Republicans both equally hate the idea of you having rights and freedoms. The Democrat politicians don't really lie so much about wanting to take away your rights (they flat out tell you), but what happened to due process and reinterpretation of terms like "automatic weapons" under Donnie's reign? And I'm only using him since he's the most recent example.
People get caught up in the cult of personality and ignore that they're looking at a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Last edited by Honkey_Kong; 03-24-2021 at 01:50 PM.
VET
From what I remember we lost bump fire stocks, to the mysterious “las vegas shooter” under Trump. Ammo got scarce and inflated.
Superbowl XLIX Champs!
“Take the guns first, go through due process second."
Yeah, that false flag was the catalyst for that infringement. It's just another inch lost forever.
Banned
I couldn't agree with you more.
I honestly believe most liberal people are well intending in thier own minds. They really do mean well for the most part.
The establishment of the democrat party however is a different case entirely. As it's sole purpose is to propogate it's own power and control. It's quite obvious the leadership of that party doesn't believe in not practice what it preaches.
And examples can be found on the right as well.
Good point
Banned
I'm in the Chicago area myself where there is a lot of homicide. By taking guns away from law abiding citizens you are greatly increasing crime especially burglary. Basically banning guns you are making it illegal for the law abiding citizen to protect themselves. If someone suggests that banning legal guns will reduce criminals access to guns, that is painfully ignorant- i.e. (DRUGS)
Politicians however will argue banning guns will reduce suicide & mass shootings. I'm really discouraged if anyone believes that. Do citizens need to own an automatic? Answer is NO. Do I need to own a 50 caliber with a silencer? My answer is no. But disarming me from a gun is a mass shooters wet dream and vice versa if I have a concealed gun I will be that mass shooters worst nightmare. I love seeing gun shops in Chicago area where inner city youth and older females are learning to shoot a gun. This increase of law abiding gun owners will only reinforce peace in their community.
Knowledgeable Member
gov way to get things to change. there is zero common sense in the ban and everything that is coming with it.
and anyone who thinks smart-guns are the way to go should lay down in traffic.
Neurologically Intact
What do I think? < no one cares
If it does happen my artillery will b worth a whole lot more than it is rn
Banned
Last I counted... and it takes a while to count them all...
There are more guns in America now than ever before.
For all the talk of the government taking away your guns...
It sure seems like the exact opposite is happening.
I am pro-gun...
But I don't believe that there shouldn't exist some restrictions.
Where do we draw the line?
Can everyone have a nuclear bomb no background check needed?
Knowledgeable Member
We had a war in this country once because one side believed very strongly in something (which was -- at the time -- both legal and constitutionally-protected) that the other side wanted to outlaw. And those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
FBI Stats Show Knives Kill Far More People Than Rifles In America – It’s Not Even Close
Last edited by Beetlegeuse; 03-25-2021 at 09:40 AM.
Knowledge Member on Prostate Cancer
If there sir you are referring to the War Between the States ? It was not fought over slavery ! It was fought over states rights to govern themselves ! Lincoln whos great speech the Proclamation Declaration Was never even seen come to pass by Lincoln until way after the war ended . Do some real history about that war and you will see as usual the USA attacked a Sovereign Nation ? Yes the south went through the US Congress and legally seceded from the union . They were an independent Nation not a rebel nation as history has taught us and the USA started the War with another nation as we usually by pushing the limits of another nation by drawing fire in SC and the the money wrath and industrial Notch came down on the south ....... Oh and just for you socially taught folks that have been publicly educated lacking true facts and do no real history research ......... There were more Irish slaves at the date of the War Between the States than Black ....... Check that one out and prove me wrong if you so desire with facts not repeating BS public education or talking heads
Last edited by BuzzardMarinePumper; 05-27-2021 at 10:13 PM.
Knowledgeable Member
Oh, lordie, I as hoping I wouldn't have to type this much today ...
I didn't say the war was fought over slavery, I said it was caused by slavery. It's not the same thing. The Great War was caused by a Yugoslav nationalist assassinating the heir to the throne of Autro-Hungarian Empire but the war wasn't fought over Princip's assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. It was fought in part over an interconnected series of treaties of mutual support, and the rest was a family squabble because most of the monarchs of Europe were cousins, descendants of old Queen Vic. In fact back then it often was called "The Cousin's War."
I can't see that there was any other weight issue looming that might have precipitated a shooting war between the two factions. If there had been no slavery, I doubt the tensions between the two factions ever would have risen so high as to come to blows. Therefore it was the war's cause, but not why it was fought.
And I beg to differ about States Rights. The single most important factor driving the prosecution of The Late Unpleasantness ... was Sectionalism.
Because different parts of the country tended to be settled by peoples from the same region in Europe, they tended to be fairly homogeneous in culture and political ideology. They came to America with great dreams and aspirations of what the proper path of their new nation should be, and they resented anyone with differening viewpoints. Sometimes strongly.
Plus their hereditary grievances also made the voyage with them from the old world to the new. The South was settled mostly by immigrants from Scotland and Ireland, and Englishmen of Anglo-Saxon descent from the western counties (Wales & Cornwall). The North was populated mostly with immigrants from Germany, the Netherlands and the eastern counties of England, men of Norman ancestry.
So most (white European) Southerners were from places in the British Isles where the common sentiment was that "their people" had been being persecuted by the Norman (London) English for centuries. And the Norman English thought that the Cornish, the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish were all a bunch of slackers, ne'er-do-wells and borned troublemakers who were not deserving of the success they had found in America.
So it can't be overstated that there was a genuine animosity in some circles both in the North and in the South against the other. So strong that many Northerners could not be bothered to object when Mr. Lincoln started his war against the prodigal South. If the sentiment hadn't been so widespread in the North that the South deserved the comeuppance that Lincoln was delivering, they could have raised such a great hue and cry that Lincoln would have had no choice but cease prosecuting the war. If they hadn't so despised not the Southerners but their ancestors, it would have never have become the protracted bloodbath that it did.
That animosity was wherein the North found the iron will so slaughter so many fellow Americans. That the Southerners might have believed that they were defending their rights didn't enter into it because it wasn't their rights the North was waging war against.
But that's a complex issue and I don't feel like typing that much so I'll close this post with two thoughts.
It is simplistic (and, to an extent, sophistic) to attribute the cause of any war to a moral issue because somebody always feels they were morally wronged before the war began, wronged by the commencement of the war, wronged by the prosecution of the war, wronged by the cessation of the war, and wronged by the peace that was imposed after the war was ended. But wars rarely -- if ever -- are fought for any reason but one.
Money. Or finances in general, to include land and natural resources.
Lincoln's speeches and writings make it clear he had no particular affection for black folk, and in many cases his attitudes appear to 21st Century eyes to be virulently racist. Whatever interest he might have had in ending slavery was less for the benefit of the slave than for the redemption of the slave-owner, whatever color they might be, because he thought the practice of owning slaves to be corrupting and morally debasing. His was chiefly opposed to slavery because of what it did to the slave owners, not because of what it was taking from the slaves.
In fact, Lincoln once remarked that as a child his father hired him out as essentially a bond servant, a "temporary slave." Which he recognized his father had done not out of spite or neglect but as a means of survival. So he knew first hand that some conditions were worse than slavery and that worse conditions sometimes could be alleviated by it (and slavery in fact universally tended to be a more temporary and fungible condition than it became in America after the importation of slaves was outlawed in 1808).
The simple fact is Lincoln knew he could not let the Southern states go without risking the ruination of the Northern economy.
The South hadn't got rich selling its goods to the North, it got rich selling them to the rest of the world, and that could not have happened without Northern complicity because the South had no shipbuilders and few deep water harbors that were not subject to violent seasonal storms. And virtually every major industrialist or capitalist in the North was involved in some aspect of the foreign trade of cotton or tobacco and so was complicit in the practice of slavery.
In 1860, 75% of all American exports (in value) came from the Southern states. The 10 richest men in America all lived in the Natchez district of Mississippi, and all were cotton farmers.
Cotton was more than just a crop, it was the national currency. Men in Boston wore beaver skin stovepipe hats paid for with money made speculating on cotton futures. Ladies in Philadelphia dressed in Belgian lace paid for with proceeds from building ships to carry Southern cotton to European markets. The social elite in New York City adorned their banquet tables with Garrard silverware paid for by returns on investments in cotton plantations in Mississippi and Alabama.
In 1860, an editorialist for the London Times opined that without King Cotton, "The ships would rot at her docks; grass would grow in Wall Street and Broadway, and the glory of New York, like that of Babylon and Rome, would be numbered with the things of the past. As much as it is linked to the barbaric system of slave labor that raised it, cotton created New York."
"...[C]otton created New York...."
He further posed, “What would New York be without slavery?”
From the turn of the 19th Century until Mr Lincoln started his war, the majority of all federal revenues came just from the export tariffs applied to cotton. When Lincoln was asked in a cabinet meeting some time after the shelling at Fort Sumter why he just didn't bid the Confederacy a fond farewell, there were three independent testimonies that his reply was, "What shall we do for our revenue?"
And in his first inaugural address, Lincoln said, "...In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts;..."
In other words, give unto Lincoln the things that are Lincoln's and I will have no reason to make war.
Furthermore the, South collectively took active measures on three separate occasions indicating that they were willing to give up slavery in return for being rid of Lincoln.
First, in 1861, before President Buchanan left office, both houses of the US Congress passed (and Buchanan signed) the Corwin Amendment, which proposed a Constitutional Amendment protecting the institution of slavery. President Buchanan signed the bill on 2 March, 1861, at which time all that was necessary for slavery to be constitutionally protected was ratification by 3/4ths of the states.
None of the rebellious states ever considered ratifying the Amendment, despite the fact that it became law a month before hostilities began in earnest. However, there were five non-rebellious states that did ratify it, plus the "Restored Government of Virginia," which was a group of legislators who in the end would lead the partitioning of West Virginia from the Old Dominion.
Presuming that all 11 Confederate states had voted to ratify, and with the admission of Kansas to the Union in 1861, that would have left the Confederacy nine or 10 states short of ratification. So why would they completely ignore the bill's existence? Why not try to persuade some of the remaining states to codify the protection of slavery, when they knew that the alternative path they were pursuing might well lead to war?
The only rational interpretation of their actions is that they preferred no longer to be joined to the United States over all other considerations.
Second, in his 1862 speech marking the first anniversary of his inauguration, some 11 months after the shelling of Ft Sumter, Lincoln held out an olive branch to the Confederacy. He proposed that they rejoin the Union and keep their slaves (no harm, no foul) but that they then would undertake a gradual emancipation all slaves (and their descendants) to be completed before the end of the 19th Century.
Rejoin the Union and keep your slaves, at least for a while. He got no formal response from anyone in the Confederate government.
And thirdly -- and this is I find incontrovertible proof that Confederates States prioritized being rid of Lincoln over all else -- is Duncan Keener.
Whom you probably never heard of. Until now.
Keener was a Louisiana State Representative in the Confederate Congress. In 1863 he approached Confederate President Davis with the idea of enlisting support for the Confederate cause -- at the very least, recognition of the nation's legitimacy -- from France and England. But since neither France nor England allowed slavery, he and Davis both recognized that they would have to use slavery as a bargaining chip.
Keener first approached Napoleon III, Emperor of France (emperor one week, president the next, then back to emperor, and so-on). He convinced Napoleon III (nephew of the Napoleon Bonaparte) to recognize the Confederacy in return for it abolishing slavery by 1865!!!
Got that? They official stance of the Confederate States was that they would not agree to rejoin the Union and keep their slaves (at least temporarily) but that they would emancipate all of their slaves, and in less that two years time, in return for independence from the United States.
The Emperor of France agreed but his agreement had one proviso, that being that England must also agree.
But the sitting British Prime Minister, John Henry Temple (Lord Palmerston) was not particularly fond of the former colonies so, content to watch the dis-united States stew in its own juices, he refused to receive Keener as an envoy of the CSA.
So yes, BuzzardMarinePumper, I had a passing familiarity with the fact that the war wasn't fought over slavery, but that doesn't alter the fact that without slavery the war almost certainly never would have happened.
But Sectionalism, a general and deep-seated spite between Old World ethnic groups, that was the reason that what might have been a short and rather bloodless conflict devolved into the bloodiest war the Western Hemisphere yet has seen. Not States Rights.
Last edited by Beetlegeuse; 05-28-2021 at 09:26 PM.
Knowledge Member on Prostate Cancer
I like the effort and much more knowledge than most but still missing facts and not totally true . In legality realms If all is not true ......NON IS TRUE ..... Soooooooo sicne this is sprinkled with partial truths that I do agree on many of the statement are opinions and not facts so therefore not admissible as truth to over turn . I just got out of a coma and dare not type so much . But as I stated partial truths that I agree with and many opinions I disagree with as an astute researcher of the War Between the States . The USA attacked a a legal vested nation they had no business messing in their National affairs or even asking them to reunite with the ( Confederated Americas ) Research how many names has the USA clamed over the past 250 years ?
Oh P.S. Great write up just missing a few very important points ! Thank you for proving part of on point and missing the curt !
Last edited by BuzzardMarinePumper; 05-28-2021 at 10:01 PM.
Knowledgeable Member
Well, the certain way to prevent anyone challenging your facts ... is not to present any.
Knowledge Member on Prostate Cancer
This is the purpose of this thread and do I hear rebuttal on this FACT ?
As a former combat US Marine I have a historical fact to share that most military ppl learn as a recruit . Gun control of any kind point blank period is in direct violation of the 2nd amendment ? Why you may wonder ? I did not write the 2nd amendment and I cannot pick and choose what I want to like or dislike about the 2nd amendment . It was well thought out by many good men who had just sacrificed all they had to create this GREAT NATION , with wisdom and discussion they wrote the 2nd amendment for one reason ! There are many paper written back in the time regarding this amendment (The Jefferson Papers ) ( James Madison Papers ) Many more ! So opiniated young men I challenge you to educate yourselves as opposed to being democratic or republican and stop repeating what the talking heads on TV pour into you brain . Lies can never change facts . But a lie told long enough ppl begin to believe . Never give up the right to be free and say NO to the govt and stop looking for govt to take care of you . I am a part of neither party and closer to Librarian , but not even that I am a purist ? A Constitutionalist -- Give me liberty or give me death I will die a free man !
There have been crazies mass killings since the beginning of time before guns of any type . Point in statement is the 2nd amendment and it's rights given to a fee republic of ppl has noting to do with mass shootings multi round mags or the way a rifle looks ! Bottom line is the 2nd amendment was written so free men would have equal weaponry NEAR equal to the US Govt. for the purpose of protecting our rights as we the ppl to actually defend ourselves against an over reaching and out of control Govt. ........ Much like what we have now . Look how easily the Covid 19 scare changed our lives through Govt control . What if this is a test run and near required vaccines . = to near martial law ( Like what I say or not ) Any gun a free man owns is not intentioned by the 2nd amendment for any other reason than to keep and save our liberties and is rightfully owned with the intent to keep all men free ! End of discussion ! SWAK !
Last edited by BuzzardMarinePumper; 05-29-2021 at 01:18 PM.
Knowledgeable Member
Just like the riots staged by Black LIES Matter and the Anti-Trump Fascists, it's a made-up crisis.
GOP Sen. Kennedy: ‘We Do Not Need More Gun Control — We Need More Idiot Control’
“Look, these killings were terrible,” he said. “They were horrible. I’m reminded though that, you know, America is a big country. We’re free, and one of the prices we pay for that freedom is that you’re always going to have some people who abuse it. Freedom is risk. But we have got to concentrate on is how to control that risk. You’re not going to stop the killings until you stop the killers. But you don’t stop drunk drivers by getting rid of all sober drivers, which is what many of my Democratic friends want to do with respect to the Second Amendment.”
“In my judgment, we do not need more gun control,” Kennedy continued. “We need more idiot control. How do we do that? We have already tried, the Republicans have. Senator Grassley, Senator Cruz had a bill to strengthen our national database. We regulate gun ownership in America. If you are convicted of certain crimes, if you have a tendency to violence, if you are mentally ill, and you want to buy a gun, your name has to run through a database. The problem is that the database has huge holes in it. And many federal agencies and state agencies are very cavalier about sending in the names. Grassley and Cruz’s bill, which I support, would have tightened up the database, and it would have cracked down on people who have guns who shouldn’t have guns.”
“Do you know why the bill didn’t pass?” he added. “Many of my Democratic colleagues filibustered it. Now, if you drill down far enough, what you’re going to find — I don’t want to paint with too broad a brush — but many, not all, many of my Democratic colleagues — they just don’t believe in the Second Amendment. They just don’t. I mean, we have heard it in terms of police officers. I mean, basically, the Democratic position is that if a bad guy shoots a cop, it’s the gun’s problem. If a cop shoots a bad guy, it’s the cop’s fault. You know, if it weren’t for double standards here, we wouldn’t have any standards at all.”
EDIT:
It also bears mention that this mass murder (STOP CALLING THEM MASS SHOOTINGS!) took place in one of the few states that has passed an unconstitutional (violates the 4th Amendment) universal background check law.
Last edited by Beetlegeuse; 03-24-2021 at 08:36 PM.
Banned
Were they not shot???
I'm so confused.
Knowledgeable Member
Inspired By Left’s ‘Anti-Racist’ Propaganda? Boulder Shooter’s History Of Anti-White Racism And Hate Crime Hoaxes Revealed
The gunman in Boulder who killed 10 people at a supermarket would routinely threaten his classmates with threats of filing fake hate crime charges after violently attacking them, eyewitnesses told the media.
Sounds like something inspired by the Left “critical race theory”, doesn’t it? We aren’t fond of jumping to blame “racism” for everything but, unlike the Left’s flimsy claims that the Atlanta shooter was inspired by Trump, there actually seems to be quite a bit of evidence that the Boulder gunman was driven by “anti-racism” indoctrination....
Follow either of the links for the rest of the story
Knowledgeable Member
An assault rifle is a machine gun, a Title II NFA device.
Since the NFA was enacted in 1934 there have been exactly two (2) homicides in the US involving a legally-owned machine gun, and neither of those was a rifle. There has never been even a single mass murder involving a machine gun, legal or otherwise, with the possible exception of the Las Vegas massacre, and we don't know the truth of that because the FBI seized the weapons used and won't let the ATF examine them.
If you don't know what an "assault rifle" is, you're entirely out of your depth in this discussion.
Knowledgeable Member
Upwards of 90% of mass murderers (and serial killers) were raised by a single mother.
Blue states have slightly more than twice as many mass murders involving a firearms than Red states. So-called "swing-states" have more than either.
Blaming inanimate objects for the consequenes of societal problems is every bit as scientific an approach as hoping to cure the sick by using blood-letting to balance the four humours.
Anabolic Member
By four or more shootings, is that in one event or multiple events? Not flaming, just curious as to the meaning, TY.Upwards of 90% of mass murderers (and serial killers) were raised by a single mother.
Blue states have slightly more than twice as many mass murders involving a firearms than Red states. So-called "swing-states" have more than either.
Blaming inanimate objects for the consequenes of societal problems is every bit as scientific an approach as hoping to cure the sick by using blood-letting to balance the four humours.
Banned
You know wango, I got alot of respect for you. For alot of reasons.
A guy who teaches high school for a living, doesn't do it for the money. Sure you need money to live, but you also believe in what you're doing.
You ask questions. Always. And try to understand.
They say, the best teachers, are also great students. Because in order to teach the right way, you've got to understand the questions surrounding the equation. And you always ask about every variable.
I believe his meaning here is that the mass shooting perpetrators are obviously not predominantly "right wing gun nuts" or "white supremacist radicals" like the democrat party propaganda networks constantly howl and proclaim.
Because they're lying. Just like the tragic death of George Floyd. Because if he wasn't "murdered by a racist white cop" then the entire past summer of riots and destruction was based on a lie. Just like the push for more gun control. That's his point. It's a lie. And the lie is intentionally told. To propagate an outcome of planned events.
Just yesterday the democrat party voted not to inform ICE when illegal aliens try to buy firearms. In other words, the democrat party voted for additional gun control for American citizens, but not for illegal aliens.
This all centers around a common and easily identifiable theme. And that is, the democrat party's ambition for power and control.
"Racist" for example, is anything that proposes a roadblock to the democrat party's road to power. And they have the minions trained to mindlessly attack anything or anyone they proclaim "racist" without question or forethought. The democrat party shrieking that something, Or someone "racist" is like sicke em, to the dogs. It means basically "attack" and destroy to the indoctrinated mobs. This includes institutions, individuals and even ideas that don't align with democrat party goals. This indoctrination is so intense in those who've been subject to it, that few can ever see through it who've been subjected to it.
This in truth is the exact opposite of what I believe a good teacher would value as knowledge. Because imparting knowledge is the ultimate goal of teaching. And nobody, whether they be students, teachers or masters should ever stop observing, with clarity and objectivity (a skill that must be taught, and is the foundation of knowledge) and accepting what they see without bias, because truth has no bias, and knowledge is the process of questioning truth and proving it to be fact, and subsequently knowing it to be demonstratably truth because it can be proven in practical operation and observation with hard logic and reason.
Sadly, so few ask questions anymore. And even few accept truth. Because the pursuit of truth and the ability to question objectively is seldom actually taught anymore.
But I have no question, it is still taught in your classroom
Keep on keeping on brother. The future is truly in your hands.
Last edited by Hughinn; 03-30-2021 at 10:53 AM.
Anabolic Member
Respect right back at you.
This forum has opened my eyes up to many topics that I chose to ignore for much of my life, and sometimes I’m as guilty as the next for taking an immovable stance on something without really considering it more. I sincerely do learn from all of you guys here. Although I might not agree with or like what is said, I’m trying to do a better job of trying to understand.
Beetle is particularly well informed, but I also know that he is careful with his words and chooses them for a reason. That is why I asked Beetle what he meant. That way when he talks about this topic in the future, I will understand what he is saying vs. assuming what is saying and completely misinterpreting him.
My class is very open and as long as respect is maintained, no voice or opinion is silenced ever. For as much as I am allowed, I am 100% open with my students regarding my opinions and I am never biased left vs. right.
Last edited by wango; 03-30-2021 at 03:25 PM.
Anabolic Member
And you would be 100% WRONG!Person A : "Well thought out, informed, insightful perspective offered".
Response from all sides : "You're an idiot because you don't think like I/we do and WE ARE LOUDER!!!!"
There you go. That is what this issue will boil down to. BTW, this also will apply this to a LOT of future political (or at least politicized) discussions as well.
You are welcome for all the time I saved you.
Knowledgeable Member
... and if you don't have a crisis handy, manufacture one.
As recently as 2018, accidental falls killed 126 times as many Americans as all homicides involving rifles of all kinds (which includes AR and AK-pattern rifles). Accidental falls killed 86 times more people than all homicides involving firearms of any sort, including blunderbusses, pepperboxes, punt guns and Puckle guns.
Hammers, clubs and other blunt objects were used in 49% more homicides than all homicides involving rifles of any sort (only a small fraction of which were AR or AK-pattern rifles).
I saw an online article a couple of days ago from a self-proclaimed "gun guy" claiming that the biggest reason the AR-pattern rifle is used in so many mass murders is because it's a popular rifle.
This is utter bullshit. He's implying that these people who seek to make themselves eternally infamous by slaughtering as many of their fellow human beings as they can have taken a poll or studied sales figures en route to selecting which weapon they will use in their mass murder. Which is preposterous.
If they had done their homework they would have learned that explosives offer a far higher return on investment for mass casualties. Prior to the Las Vegas massacre, the largest mass murder in American history didn't involve so much as a single death by firearm. it was all explosives and the resulting fires.
Remember the Nashville Christmas bombing? That bomber took deliberate measures to reduce the number of people who his actions would kill. But what if he had done his business without broadcasting a warning and on a Sunday while a Tennessee Titans football game was under way?
Titans Stadium is right across the river from the entertainment district of lower Broadway, and there's a foot bridge across the river connecting the two. Lower Broad has bars and restaurants crammed in cheek by jowl and on game day each and every one of them is overflowing with fans who couldn't get tickets but still wanted to be close enough to the stadium to hear the roar of the crowd live and in person while watching the game on the bar's big screen TV. There would have been literally tens of thousands of potential targets within the blast radius of his bomb.
If he had done his business on game day, had parked in the middle of that block, and had set off the device without warning people to clear out, he would have killed hundreds. Maybe thousands.
The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of these mass murderers weren't "gun guys" and didn't have any particular expertise in firearms. They didn't do extensive research before selecting the AR-15, they just took the advice of the "most respected" source of information in America: the mainstream media.
Most of these guys used ARs because the media won't stop wagging their collective tongues about how deadly they are, and how all they're good for is committing mass murders.
If you want to point fingers at who it is that's responsible for inciting murder on an industrial scale, the MSM needs to be at the top of your list.
Anabolic Member
Well then to be fair, let’s try to limit falling. Maybe improve the infrastructure, perhaps improve those curbs and sidewalks? Maybe build more ramps (hell Joe needs those for planes right?). Damn beetle, you dove right into the heart of why we need to build our infrastructure, keep connecting those dots please.
VET
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bid...ns-gun-control
Well isnt that nice. He sure loves “executive action” doesn’t he. Knew this shit was coming.
Superbowl XLIX Champs!
I'm sure it's going to be very anti-Constitutional too. All presidents and nearly everybody in Congress wipe their asses with the document as they please. They only act like they're pro-Constitution, when it just so happens to go with whatever angle they're pushing at the time. The rest of the time, they pretend like it never existed. And Trump was no exception to it. Remember he had the ATF redefine what a "machine gun" was to include plastic stocks. He also instructed his alphabet organizations to "take the guns first. then worry about due process later." He encouraged states to pass red flag laws, knowing that they will be abused and guns would be taken away from people who did nothing wrong.
The whole thing is that unless the public are willing and able to fight the government when the government violates those Constitutional rights, then the document might as well not even exist. And the judicial branch is just as bad.
But instead of pointing blame and taking on the entire system, people just get caught up in the "Democrat/Republican" blame game. Both sides of that false paradigm equally violate the people at will while their proponents look the other way. And nobody is going to do anything about it. Voting doesn't change this and will not change it.
Anabolic Member
I see your point, but a lot has changed since 1787. Can't take everything in the constitution word for word. If that were the case, then anyone could own rocket launchers and laser guns, etc. Nobody predicted mass shootings in 1787 because their muskets took 20 seconds to reload for one shot. We have amendments, of course, which show that nothing is written in stone (for good or for bad).
Superbowl XLIX Champs!
If I feel I need rocket launchers and ICBMs in order to protect myself from a tyrannical government, then I should be able to have it (supposing I could actually afford it). But it isn't just a matter of the 2A that gets pissed on by government. The entire Bill of Rights gets violated regularly by government and nobody is willing and/or able to do anything about it. And the people in government know this, so they just keep pushing it even further.
Borderline Personality
Actually, if you look at arms ownership when the Constitution was written private citizens could (and did) own artillery, warships, and the like. No kidding.
With all this talk of guns people forget it's still perfectly legal to own a flamethrower almost everywhere.
Anabolic Member
Crazy. I suppose in those days, before we had an organized military and police force, they kind of had to let people own anything just to defend against foreign invaders, native Americans, bands of bandits, and who knows what else.
I think Elon Musk was/is selling flamethrowers, and just looked it up and you’re right, it’s legal to own one in 48/50 states except Maryland and California. I just thought of 100 bad scenarios with one of those. Surprised it hasn’t been used at Bath & Body Works yet.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
