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...
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
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.
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
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?
VET
I agree its lost. I wanted one to play around with but i didnt take it that serious and before i know it they’re gone. It sucks but i can live without what i never had. Now, take my whole firearm we got a problem
Superbowl XLIX Champs!
With ammo shortages and prices these days, they really didn't have to ban them. But yeah, I always thought they were stupid. A lightning link would've worked a lot better.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Banned
See how Fox News views executive orders...
number of executive orders by each president...
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/stat...ecutive-orders
Last edited by The Deadlifting Dog; 04-07-2021 at 03:49 PM.
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.
Superbowl XLIX Champs!
I wouldn't be sad if somebody used one at that place. I hate being dragged there.
Banned
But there are MILFS there!!!!
No killing of Soccer Moms!!!
Banned
Joe Biden's lies about gun control. He lied his ass off.
https://youtu.be/l_YU4ii9mnM
https://therightscoop.com/heres-a-gr...ontrol-speech/
https://www.dailywire.com/news/fact-...ess-conference
"No amendment to the constitution is absolute"- joe Biden
No tyrant in history has been bolder than to make such a proclamation that none of your rights are absolute. So much for the orange menace "destroying our constitution" eh? He never pulled anything like it. Could imagine the hysterics and outrage if Donald Trump made such a statement?
Coming from tha same people that want to take your means of self defense away, are now telling you , that none of your rights are absolute.
Let that sink in.
Let them take your guns away, and see just how many rights you'll have left. Much less what's absolute.
But hey 81 million people voted for this (OR SO WE'RE TOLD). Because what the he and the democrat party are pulling should come as no surprise. They've stolen trillions of your moneys. Now they want your guns.
Last edited by Hughinn; 04-09-2021 at 08:45 AM.
Banned
Not looking to fight Hughinn.
Simply pointing out how amendments work.
The 18th amendment took away the right to drink alcohol.
The 21st amnedment give people the right to drink again.
(I am sure someone more scholarly than me can give a more accurate description.)
So amendments are not set in stone.
Last edited by The Deadlifting Dog; 04-09-2021 at 09:03 AM. Reason: spelling and emojis
There are currently 7 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 7 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
