Those the same founders that made it abundantly clear that women aren't equal to men and blacks count as 3/5?

You have spent a lot of words defending the status quo on guns, do you have any suggestions on how to deal with mass shootings? Is anyone who would like to make any changes at all to make gun laws tighter or stricter automatically labeled a "banisher"?

I would like to note that the AR-15 became the standard rifle for the general population many years before military shooter video games became prevalent or even existed. The AR-15 is the best rifle technology of the 1960's.

I would like to again note that this is already the law, federally, for any purchase from a dealer (and if you act as a dealer without being a formal FFL, you go to federal prison). When you buy a gun from Academy, you are already going through a background check. When you buy a gun from an FFL at a show, you are going through a background check. When you buy a gun from a pawn shop, they must have an FFL and you are going through a background check. Many states require them even on PPT's between non-dealer individuals selling or gifting their used property on occasion.

Again, who is going to pay for all that?
And honestly, what kind of America do you envision? Tall fences and armed security guards around every neighborhood school? Maybe some razor wire? What would college campuses look like?

"Second, I would move the legal age to purchase a firearm up to 21. There are no guarantees that any steps will work, but NOT DOING ANYTHING DOES NOT WORK."

That damn Second Amendment won't let you do that though.

Gun laws barring sales to people under 21 are unconstitutional, appeals court rules

You're right. We should void all of the constitutional liberties we have because the Founder's did not have 2022 values. I'm sure you can see the fallacy here. Debate on a reasonable foundation. 'X individual is guilty of Y, therefore they are wrong on Z' is not reasonable, and I'm sure all of you here would know that immediately if the issue was an unemotional one.

I would say that, when the topic is what the 2nd amendment means, referring to the words and actions of the people who wrote it and voted for it is quite relevant. You may think the 2nd shouldn't exist, and reasonably so, but I don't see how it is not relevant to what it means to refer to the people who authored it.

I am not a fan of the status quo on guns whatsoever. I think the 2nd is frequently infringed, especially in ban-heavy states like California. How many rounds are in my magazine, whether I have a muzzle brake or a compensator or a suppressor screwed on to the end of the barrel, where my rifle has a collapsible stock, whether it has a grip that protrudes below the action and allows my thumb around it, I do not think these are the business of the State.

No, one can support gun control measures that are not actually bans. I am quite aware what "ban" means. With the "lot of words" I have written here, I am sure you can reasonably object to things I have actually said instead of inventing straw men. Let's debate what I have actually said.

I think we should deal with mass shootings by focusing on the people who are guilty, and the causes of violence. I made several posts commenting on this before the derailing. It is not a specific tool, it is a decision people make. People are responsible for their actions. I would support many measures in the mental health realm. I do not support infringing on constitutional rights or banning some/all guns or blaming gunowners for the act of a nutter. I have even said I do not greatly object to background checks, even though there is little to no evidence they actually work. There are something like half a billion guns in this country, disarming the law abiding will not disarm someone hellbent on mass murder, the black market will always exist. It just makes it a little more dangerous for the rest of us.

I would also like to note that the AR-15 sold to civilians is factually NOT an Assault Rifle. This is a term with an actual meeting. The AR-15 you buy at the store does not have a full-auto switch. It is not an assault rifle.

A legally transferable NFA registered M16 from before 1986 is over $40,000 for the lower, last I heard.

Serious about gun control? Repeal the amendment. But, no....

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...repeal/554540/

Don't give them ideas! :D

Don't worry, there is no political courage to make any serious effort, it's so much better to virtue signal and profess outrage and vaguely demand vague and probably unconstitutional reforms. That way you don't really risk alienating anyone, and you can do the same thing and score virtue points all over again the next time a mass shooting happens.

Another mass shooting today. 5 dead in a Tulsa, OK medical facility. The increasing regularity of these events is truly disturbing.

That’s essentially just saying you don’t know, or don’t want to answer out loud.

If you believe something, then own it. Quit the childish games.

They should really try putting up a sign that says firearms are not allowed on the premise.

Anybody who has been paying attention to what has been happening in this country shouldn't be shocked. We're becoming a moral-less society, increasingly mentally unhealthy & unstable, and it's election season (for those who believe there is no such thing as coincidence).

When texting and driving was at its peak, they didn't ban cars or cell phones. They targeted the person behind the wheel who controlled the car and the phone. The lack of consistency when it comes to "shootings" is why it's hard to even consider taking anti-gun arguments seriously.

Who wrote the article?

Did they explain the real reason…..

All military styled rifles have been popular for decades. MOST except for the AR15 were imported from the original manufacturers in their respective countries. In 1989 George Bush stopped importation via executive order. The market had demand so it filled it with the 1 of the few US made rifles left.

The Bush ban blocked Chinese AK-47 and SKS variants, Israeli Galil variants, Finnish Valmet variants as well as the FN FAL from Belgium, Israel, Australia, Brazil and Argentina.

George Bush forced companies to either manufacture guns wholly in the US or import demilled parts kits to be rebuilt with a minimum number of US parts in their remanufacture.

The marketing angle was simply a demand being fought over by the myriad of US manufacturers wanting more market share. Had the Bush ban never happened the AR15 would be a much smaller segment of the US military styled rifle market. Truth be told all the Bush bad did was funnel all the $ into one particular US design and make everything more expensive because it eliminated foreign labor.

Nothing can be done to stop it.

So then why isn't a death certificate issued for each and every miscarriage? Only 7 states and 3 American territories require reporting the death of "(a)ll products of human conception." Twenty-five states require reporting the death if the gestation period is 20 weeks or greater. Twelve states and one territory require reporting the death is the gestation period is 20 weeks or greater and the birth weight is 350 grams or more. You can see the reporting requirements for all the states and territories here:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/itop97.pdf

Furthermore, we all know laws are fluid. They change depending upon who has the power to craft and pass the laws. So quoting a law, even though it may be current law of the land, means nothing in the context of this discussion. Otherwise, this whole discussion would be moot, no?

Ok, so you would support (or not object to) background checks. You would support mental health measures, but not if they infringe on constitutional rights.

1) What mental health measures would you support, and how do you see this helping the problem?
2) You appear to be saying any curb on guns/ammo/etc is an infringement on your rights. But we put curbs on our rights in almost every aspect of our lives, for the good of us all. Why would, say, making mandatory gun safety classes before buying a first gun against the constitution, but not taking driver's Ed before getting behind the wheel?

Okay. And you say this, why?


Yes, I know what it is co-opted to mean by those who are against abortion. But seriously, how can a person claim to be pro-life if he/she wants to execute people? Seriously. That's all I want to know.


This thread got derailed when abortion was thrown in the mix. Don't pretend otherwise.

If you think imposing the death penalty on a convicted murderer is the same as the picture below, your a sick and disgusting person.

1A) I support liberal reforms to the healthcare system to make care cheaper and affordable or free; including mental care and psychiatrists, so that those who cannot or will not pay the cost or have family to pay the cost may get the help they need, for the good of everyone. I would look into improving access and resources ( something like half the counties in the US have 0 psychiatrists or psychologists, you can’t make people move around but you can incentivize one setting up practice in a previously underserved area). In cases of mental illness, I would look into adjusting HIPAA to allow some compassionate disclosure between a doctor and the family of a mental-problem person. Time and again we see that they are known to have issues, but the family doesn’t really understand just how bad it is.

I’m sure there’s more, but there’s 3 specific lanes I would investigate and see if the data on matches the reasoning.


1B) Because the vast majority of people who do such things have mental problems that are known to some degree to some of the local community. I think that when a horrible action is committed, the perpetrator is guilty, not whichever half of the country I disagree with at the moment. A tool is not sentient, a tool does not make decisions. A tool does not choose to kill a room full of innocent children. A person does. Address the person who is actually guilty instead of political opposition.

2) Any curb factually is, by definition, an infringement. How do you curb a right without infringing on it? One can support this and argue that it is good, but I don’t see how we can reasonably pretend that a new measure curbing guns is not an infringement on guns, a right that we the people still retain at present.

First, I don’t understand the guns classes point from the other side. If one believes that civilian ownership of firearms or certain type of scary looking firearms is dangerous to the community (which seems the logical pre-requisite to supporting gun control), how would this help? Why would they want to train shooters more? Would giving the Uvalde shooter or any other a lesson in firearm safe-handling, maintenance and marksmanship do anything, except possibly make them a little bit better of a shot?

I don’t think this will ever go anywhere as a result as neither of the main factions really wants it. It is not something that greatly disturbs me, I do think it is unconstitutional, that it probably punishes poor citizens by adding yet another fee and cost, but I am a big fan of classes for people who were not born into the gun community or brought in by friends who have taught them carefully. I greatly support choosing to seek professional or knowledgeable help when one is new to it. Safe handling, marksmanship, proper care and maintenance, these are goods that firearms owners (and anyone who wants to learn) should know. I have taught many myself.


I am against curbing/ infringing any constitutional right. I like the Bill of Rights. I think an individual has the right to say or do things others don’t agree with and live their life in their own way without the interference of the State. It was just a few years ago that this made me mostly a liberal (guns have been exempted for decades from the old liberal norm, that the right of the individual is paramount to an imaginary right by one’s neighbors to not have to deal with ideas or people or things they don’t like).

See your next point where you say pro-life has been co-opted by people who do not support abortion (generally, this is the right). Get the little joke now?


Because most people are on the whole reasonable are not absolutist hardliners in every facet. A majority of people were fine with killing Osama Bin Laden. Very few people are fine with killing a new, innocent life (abortion is a disagreement primarily on when life begins) that has done no wrong. A person who supports the death penalty does not believe EVERYONE should be executed.

This illogical and absurd argument can be made for pro-choice too. A pro-choice person supports some right to get an aboriton. They do not believe literally everyone for any reason in all issues can make any choice. They still believe in some rule of law. A pro-choice person does not support a right for me to do anything at any time for any reason.

Most people are not cartoonish hardline absolutist caricatures of a human being.


Perhaps in the sense that it got off-topic, but it was a quite reasonable debate until BobC and you pretended not to be able to understand common words and phrases.

Edited out some stuff, just commenting on the bits I left.

I just don't see how raising the age to 21 would change much. being responsible or irresponsible doesn't magically change at someones birthday.

I don't know about elsewhere, but here in Mass, most of the big sporting goods stores that sold guns changed their policy to only sell to 21+. One of the most responsible people I know worked at one at 18 in the gun dept. (very apt, as he was a licensed instructor) He quit over that policy change, seeing the inherent dishonesty of an 18 year old being able to sell a gun, teach courses on safety etc, but not buy one.


Military grade weapons have nearly always been in the hands of the public.
At times, what was available to the public has been superior to what our military commonly used. (and aside from full auto being highly restricted, potentially may still be possible)
The US government ran a citizen marksmanship program starting I believe in 1903 that gave participants the ability to buy a surplus rifle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civili...anship_Program

I'm not at all against universal background checks. The way they are implemented is not particularly good.
The Texas guy passed his background checks, despite several things in his past that should have been on some record. But none of what he did was something that could be acted on in a meaningful way.

Mass put in a requirement that private sales must include background checks. But they didn't open up the background check system, preferring instead to have all those checks be done by licensed dealers. And since in populated areas there are few licensed dealers, that isn't much more than a financial gift the places like Dicks Sporting Goods.

Is this the scientific evidence that life begins at conception that you claimed existed and that I asked for back in post 134 or should I keep waiting?

And as to your comment, you are definitely free to conjure up a false impression of me that is not based on anything I've written. But in doing so, I think "your (sic) a sick and disgusting person."

Hmm, I guess some people shouldn't tell "jokes." :D


That's what I said in Post 130. Aren't you following along? But anyway, if abortion is a disagreement on when life begins, why do they claim they are "pro-life" when they actually aren't?

Who said they did? But tell you what, when a group gets together that wants to

1) redefine death so that a person incapable of breathing and eating on their own is declared legally dead;

2) make it illegal to use life support systems despite a loved one's objection;

3) is against the death penalty; and

4) call their group Pro-Death to gain support

get back to me.

Fair point.

I'm not sure whether I agree with "most." The jury is still out on that one.


It's not that I "pretended not to be able to understand common words and phrases," it's more that I don't agree with using the term pro-life in that manner. So far, nobody has even attempted to answer the question, how can they be "pro-life" when they're not? Just like I don't agree with Russia using the term "special military operation" for their invasion of Ukraine. Should we all just acquiesce and call it a "special military operation" because it's their invasion and that's what they want to call it?

I'm not getting into that debate with someone whose political affiliation believes that men can get pregnant and that there are more than 2 genders. But you can go do your own research. There are plenty of articles based on science that support the fact the life begins at conception.

I don't have to conjure up anything. Your ridiculous comments speak for themselves. Take a lesson from BobC and bow out...or you can keep posting and looking like a idiot. Either way, it's up to you.

Topps has a new chase card?

Thanks for the knowledge.

I definitely defer to others who know more about the subject. I was out of my lane, but am just hoping for things getting better.


.

Wow, wasn't meant to be childish and not really trying to be controversial.
I just assumed anyone with a HS education or half a brain could figure it out.

But lets see who I am describing....
Well I have a neighbor who is 23 years old. Known him his entire life. Granted at this particular house it is "backwoods" and he has lived their again 23 years. He does Not work, therefore does not pay taxes(contribute) receives government $$ including medicaid for his children, 2 of them, (takes).
Not such a big deal if he wasn't also running a Meth house that is very bu$y.

For something like the twelfth time, because it is not an absolutist philosophy of the universe, it is one of the two main sides in a much narrower debate.



Again, for something like the thirteenth time, it is not an absolutist philosophy of the universe, it is one of the two main sides in a much narrower debate. You know this.



This is where many extremes and many of our current problems come from - people who disagree are no longer seen as people with a different idea but almost cartoonish caricatures of an actual human being. I miss when people didn't live life convinced the other 50% are cartoon villains.

Again, for something like the fourteenth time, it is not an absolutist philosophy of the universe, it is one of the two main sides in a much narrower debate of a specific issue. It is a silly hyper partisan argument (you don't seem to keep complaining about the equally incorrect term 'pro-choice' if your pre-suppositions that these are absolutist philosophies of the universe and not what they are defined as in the dictionary and by 99%+ of America).

In other shocking news, you don't really drive in a driveway, you park in it. You know what these two terms actually mean, you know they are not absolutist philosophies of other separate issues. You are just complaining about the one that the other side uses. That's not a reasonable and consistent thought, it's just a hyperpartisan talking point that doesn't say much of anything.

"Special military operation" is not a common-use term whose meaning is known to all and commonly used above any other expression for what it is in reference too, steeped in decades of the common vernacular. I have not heard a single American use this to refer to the war, besides mocking it. This is a bad false equivalence.

Abortion is an issue for which there are rational arguments supporting both sides. I cannot fathom why this is the abortion-related argument that seems the best one to make to you. Virtue-signaling to absolutists has never convinced a person you are right; rational arguments sometimes do.

Peter, thanks for the informative clarification. Obviously, if we had a say,
we'd dissent vehemently against the court's tenuous inference. The
ammosexual crowd can be glad we'll never be able to rule on this one.

Has anyone ever thought about any of this? I know some will think it is conspiracy nonsense but I think they are valid questions that need to be answered honestly.

Where did this Avalde shooter get all his wears?

He was carrying $5-6000 worth of guns, armor and ammo.

How did he get it, poor family and 18 years old. Kid probably hadn’t made $6000 gross in his whole life. How did he get to the gun shop, how did he procure all this stuff. Where did he practice shooting. Did he go to a range or a gravel pit?

All this makes very little sense to me.

Maybe he maxed out a couple of credit cards? He obviously wasn’t concerned about paying it back or the interest. Someone that knew him told a reporter that Ramos was a huge pothead (marijuana), that has since been scrubbed completely by the media. Just like a certain detail of the Tulsa Oklahoma mass shooting, that is a narrative that the media doesn’t want, it doesn’t fit their agenda.

Also, pertaining to semi-automatic pistols:

The way gun-controllers term it, a double-action revolver (the common, every-day revolver), is a semi-automatic weapon. Think about it; one pull of the trigger, one shot out of the barrel. You pull the trigger again, another bullet comes out of the barrel (each time you pull the trigger, the cylinder automatically rotates until another round is lined up with the barrel). Nothing else needs to be done; you just keep pulling the trigger until the cylinder is empty. Current revolvers hold up to eight rounds, the same as a Colt M1911 .45 caliber semi-auto (there are some that hold even more). Current semi-automatics, like a Glock-17 (the first Glock ever made in the 1980s), holds a standard capacity of 17 rounds. The Left wants to ban all magazines that hold more than 10 rounds; that would effectively ban nearly all Glock handguns, along with many others that hold more than 10 rounds as the standard capacity.

Also, The Left wants to ban the AR-15. Guess what round the AR-15 shoots.....the .22 caliber; a round that Pres Biden apparently has no problem with. He just wants to ban the AR-15 because it looks dangerous. Then, he wants to ban the 9mm (NATO standard) round, that the vast majority of common, every-day pistols (in the world) shoots, because it, in his words "blows the lung out of the body." I guess he's never heard of a .357 magnum, or .44 magnum (think Dirty Harry), or a 10mm (will take down a bear, or even a .50 caliber Desert Eagle. All of those are handguns, and the first two (magnums) are revolvers. It just all proves that The Left doesn't have a clue of what they're talking about!

Steve

Also, here is the CURRENT LEGAL DEFINITION of The Militia:

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

32 U.S. Code § 313 - Appointments and enlistments: age limitations

(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.

(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must—

(1) be a citizen of the United States; and

(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

So, ALL US citizens over the age of 18, and under the age of 45 (under 64 in certain cases), are members of the US Militia.

As stated above in DC vs Heller, the Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, is not limited by militia membership.

Therefore, ALL US Citizens of legal age (over 18), have the right to keep and bear arms, and this right "shall not be infringed" upon.

Steve

+1
Steve

+1
Steve

It is usually amusing to look at their quotes or see what they term “high power”. A 9mm is extremely popular because it is generally seen as at or near the bottom of the power scale for a cartridge that can be effective in self defense. 5.56 is also about as low-power as cartridges in its class can get.

Really controversial is to debate .45 ACP vs 9mm Parabellum. As a classy feller, I always carry .25 ACP though.

1. I'm really not sure about what mental health measures could be enacted. HIPAA makes it difficult, if not impossible, for medical records to be released/shared. Perhaps something along the lines of if you have a specific diagnosis from a qualified mental health practitioner, a simple statement can be shared that the person should not have access to weapons; without sharing the details of the diagnosis. The doctor could put the bottom-line diagnosis, such as "John Doe suffers from schizophrenia." This could be put in the NICS System.

2. I personally have no problem with a requirement for a person to attend a gun safety class. One problem is this: say a person receives a threat of death from an ex-partner. We all know the problems with restraining orders - they do NOT work! So, the person goes out and wants to buy a gun for self-defense. Do they have to go through a gun safety class? Do they have to wait a certain number of days before actually getting the self-defense tool (aka gun)? Meanwhile, the ex has a weapon and the means to use it against the victim; and the victim is hamstrung by "the system", with no way to defend him/herself.

3. We need to bring God back into the family!

4. We need to bring responsible parenting back into the family!

5. We need to get rid of all the violent video games that are plaguing society!

6. We need to have actual security in all schools, 12th grade and below!

Steve

On the ship, we had a 'Do Not Issue' list, where every time someone had a condition that made prevented them from carrying a firearm, medical would let the armory know, and the updated list would be posted in the armory, signed by the CO. The only people who knew were the affected sailors, medical, the CO, and armory personnel. It didn't say anything beyond "The following personnel are restricted from handling weapons and ammunition: John Smith, Jane Doe, etc..." but it didn't need to; if they were on the list, that was that.

Must be something like that but I don't know an 18 yr old up here who would qualify for any credit card with a limit over $500 to a $1000 at most?

Supposedly he fought with his mom and moved out because she/him couldn't afford WIFI? They were basically welfare poor. Where did he move to and how much was rent, if there was any?

Way too many things here that aren't adding up but my gut tells me we will never find out the "real" answers.

Since he shot his grandmother in the face I assume he was staying with her.

Imagine being a naïve, easily manipulated, confused young kid nowadays, (let alone a fully grown adult), and being bombarded with critical race theory, gender reclassification, multiple genders, gender reassignment, white privilege, BLM, antifa, cancel culture, defund the police, covid, vaccines, mandates and passports, lockdowns, pregnant men, fake news, social media, global warming (and being told you only have 8 to 12 yrs to live), and still having to deal with all the normal problems and issues most teenagers face like hormone changes, trying to fit in, girls/boys, school, your future, and a whole myriad of other things.

It's not hard, but hard for some it seems, to see which party is pushing all this B.S., but yet they will defend come hell or highwater everything they are doing without giving any thought whatsoever to what it is doing to our world today. :(

I cannot make out what make/model the 2 AR-15's the Uvalde shitbag posted are, the photos I've seen of this post he made with them are too grainy for me to read. An AR can be from $500-$5,000, usually under $1,500 unless you're trying to flex at the range. A complete Colt is about $1,000.

The reports I have read stated that he had a tactical vest and not body armor (but then again a whole lot of BS has been published about this case and half of what has been said has been walked back). You can get a vest for like $40 if you aren't going for the nice stuff. Body Armor costs more.

5.56x45mm ammunition is around .50 cents in free states like Texas if you shop around. He shot, according to the News reports that are often found to be inaccurate later, between 100 and "a few hundred" rounds in the engagement.

Magazines are $10-$20 a pop.

He probably didn't have $5-6K worth of stuff. Still a lot for a broke person, but from what I've seen it's closer to $2,000 USD.

Grandma was supposedly dirt poor as well, but I also assume he likely lived there for free? Allegedly, she asked him to help out more. Whether that was financially or doing work/earning his keep, or both, I don't know?

Supposedly they were Daniel Defense rifles, which aren't cheap, but then again, like you mentioned, so many stories/walk backs it isn't funny.

I had not heard that, that’s a pretty odd choice. DD’s are like $1,800+ just for the rifle. I retire my point now!

Exactly. He only needed a tool for what he planned but he purchased a piece of jewelry instead? It makes no sense if true?
Also, and you will know better, but haven't the Feds been after and demonizing Daniel Defense for years?
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05...t-gun-legally/
https://ca.movies.yahoo.com/daniel-d...005502081.html
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...shootings.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ip-nra-meeting

Lefty Media Already Targeting Daniel Defense, Manufacturer of AR Used in Uvalde Shooting
https://www.1911forum.com/threads/le...oting.1043743/
The comments in this article are quite...
https://soldiersystems.net/2013/11/3...ed-by-the-nfl/

Knifes too-
 

There must be laws here as in England with regulations on knives allowed to be carried , no guns for citizens or law enforcement in England or Australia. Only the military need weapons,

1) well, what I would term the "pro-gun" crowd is pushing a very heavy narrative that this is strictly a mental health issue. But if mental health can't somehow be handled, then it appears we'll end up doing what we always do: nothing
2) I'm sure all kinds of "what ifs" will be brought up against any possible step towards a solution.
3) any God? Just making sure we have room for Muslims, Jews, and everyone else at the table. I assume Wiccan and atheists aren't welcome? To go back to the Founding Fathers, I remember reading most of them were Diest.
4) agree. How??
5) who decides what is violent?
6) I've asked before, are you willing to lead the way for higher taxes to pay?

Exactly a week before the shooting and a day after his eighteenth birthday he bought a "semi-automatic rifle" at a local sporting goods store, the next day he went back and bought 375 rounds, two days after that he bought a $2,000 Daniel Defense AR style rifle, and he posted online that he bought a $725 battery-powered holographic sight. He also had a tactical vest without hardened body-armor plates. Can someone with knowledge estimate what the "semi-automatic rifle" in the photo, the 375 rounds, and an average tactical vest go for?

K.en Su.li.k,

Was the incident in Uvalde violent? If so, how did you decide that? Did someone tell you it was violent? Just wondering how you came to the conclusion whether is was violent or not?

And this is why nothing ever gets resolved and we'll keep having this same discussion after each school shooting because your side wants to debate the semantics of what is violent and other silly things like that where common sense should otherwise prevail.

$725 is about right for that optic.

I can’t make out the manufacturer marks in the photos, but I have glasses for a reason. A DD is right around $2K though

375 rounds of 5.56x45 is about ~$200 these days.

A tactical vest is usually $30-$250 depending on what make. It’s basically just a vest with pouches sized for rifle magazines, a radio, and sometimes a handgun. It’s really nothing fancy. Mine was like $100 (you need somewhere to put your mags in competition).

Yeah, that’s pretty odd, I’m with you. A DD is a very well made rifle, but you’re paying a bit for the name too. The elevated cost is not all in better parts, or better fitting.

The media always comes after the manufacturer every time. Obviously DD does not like these tragedies anymore than we do.

I found more information, the first rifle is a Smith and Wesson M&P 15, the $2,000 rifle is specifically a Daniel Defense M4 V7, and he had approximately 1,600 total rounds. He begged his sister to buy a rifle for him in 2021 because he was underage but she refused, so apparently he had been saving up for a few years and had this planned for quite a while.

A M&P 15 is a popular lower middle tier AR. $700-$800 usually.

The V7 is $1800-$2000, lower end of DD’s scale.

Strange choice for this from a guy with little financial means.

What is violence? What is pro-life? I’m a fan of the Socratic but these are absolutely terrible takes.

Meanwhile, back in north Georgia:


Bill Gates is trying to make us eat fake meat grown in a peach tree dish.- so says an elected representative of my home state.


Truth is stupider than fiction.


I thought everyone could use a chuckle.
.

So you are asking whether brains and blood splattered across a classroom is equivalent to some colorful images on a tv screen that will disappear if your cat knocks the cord out? Got it.

Pornography. Video games. The Media. All of which have been affirmed by the SCOTUS to be protected under the 1st amendment. Stop and Frisk, 4th amendment. Over 65% of a certain group of citizens believe that a confession obtained sans Miranda should be admissible.
Common sense should prevail, just not on the 2nd.
And the Media shouldn't ever report on these massacres. Just offer thoughts and prayers and wait for the months-long investigation to correct mischaracterizations made by law enforcement and eyewitness accounts.

David Jame.s,
What is "my side"??? My response is to a point about video games. I think first person shooter games are violent. Do you? But what about Wipeout? Circus Atari?

I'm hearing calls to ban video games, ban food with additives, make schools into fortresses, and "bring back God.". I put forward one small step for mandatory gun training, did you see that? It just might have bought the Uvalde shooter some time between trying to buy the guns and shooting up the school. Time where maybe someone could have intervened. Do you have a valid response? Perhaps more legitimate suggestions?? I haven't seen you give one suggestion in this entire thread about how to put an end to gun violence, but you've taken a lot of shots at others.


See if you can respond in a helpful way, no insults or sarcasm. Try to work on resolving the issue.

No offense, how the heck did you guys elect that certain representative?

Peter, I've finally had a chance to look at the law you cited and I noticed this, which you omitted:

‘‘(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the
prosecution—
‘‘(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for
which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for
which such consent is implied by law;
‘‘(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant
woman or her unborn child; or
‘‘(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child."

So, I'm confused. A fetus is a human being and you can be prosecuted for murder if you cause the death of the unborn fetus. Because the fetus is a human being. But, you can't be prosecuted for murder if it is done during an abortion. Seems like the fetus is a human being worthy of protection except when it's not.

I see it also applies under limited circumstances. From Wiki: "The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism." Again, it seems like the fetus is a human being worthy of protection except when it's not.

I guess kudos to the "pro-lifers" who wrote that and got it passed. Now they can claim that a fetus is codified by law to be a human being ... except when it's not.

Now to be clear, I understand the reasoning behind the law. And I agree with that reasoning. If a pregnant woman intends to carry the fetus to term, then yes, her unborn fetus was "murdered" and the perpetrator should be punished. I can see where she may think of it as a human being and it should be protected.

But the law also recognizes, without actually saying it, that a pregnant woman who does not want to carry the fetus to term does not think of the fetus as a human being and should not be punished. At least for now.

Just as I thought. You have nothing. All you can do is make up stuff about me because you have nothing.

Looking like an idiot to an actual idiot doesn't bother me in the least.

After thinking about it, I realize I was wrong. I shouldn't have said "Fair point."

Believing in having choices and rule of law do not contradict each other. Since you like to point these things out, let me point out to you that that's a false equivalency. You can believe in freedom of choice and rule of law.

I believe everyone should have any choice for any situation.

That doesn't mean there can't be adverse consequences for certain choices/decisions. Some choices/decisions can result in the restrictions of future choices, i.e., prison.

But you do have me curious. What choice do you think nobody should have, i.e., what choice do you want to take away from everybody?

No, Jim Marinari. I'm not saying that at all. Your putting words in my mouth. Try to comprehending the full context of what was said. I'll lay it out for you since you have a comprehension problem. Steve D said that we should "get rid of all the violent video games." The Ken Sulik asked the question, "who decides what is violent?" My point was, common sense should prevail as to what is violent and what is not. I never inferred that "brains and blood splattered across a classroom is equivalent to some colorful images on a tv screen." But, given your comprehension problem, it's no wonder that's what you inferred.

Ke.n Su.li.k, (continuing with full names because if anyone ever Googles you, I want them to see your ridiculous posts).

If you have to ask what is violent and what is not, you probably need some kind of mental help.

I'm not going to even address the rest of your nonsense.

Quite the Knight of the Keyboard, David Jame.s!

Between the two rifles, the 1,600 rounds, the holographic sight, and a standard tactical vest, I came up with conservatively $4,500 which doesn’t include tax. That’s a lot of money for a just turned 18 year old who dropped out of high school at 16 and was sleeping on his grandmothers floor or couch.

I don't have to make stuff up about you, Micha.el H.unt. Your posts speak for themselves. I would say you're way out in left field, but heck, you're not even in the ballpark.

So, you don't like that I think people labeling themselves "pro-life" is absurd when they're not. Good. I get it. That doesn't change my mind, I still think calling themselves "pro-life" is a misnomer. And, I'm not, nor have I ever, claimed it is an abortion-related argument. That is a false claim on your part.

And I've noticed that in all these threads, all you do is nit-pick and castigate people that don't adhere to your claim that there's nothing odd about people who want to execute/kill people while calling themselves "pro-life." You have never stated your thoughts about abortion itself, at least not that I recall. If you have, I apologize in advance. But if you haven't, why not? What is your stance on abortion? What are your rational arguments in support of that view?

Right!! Because in the entire history of mankind, nobody has ever experienced violence because of a god or religion. Right. :eek:

But wait a minute ... my bad. Religion or god doesn't kill people, people kill people. Right? Did I get that right? :rolleyes:

Isn’t it about that time of day that you have to kneel on a rug and pray to your CLIMATE CHANGE God facing toward BO’s latest oceanfront mansion or JK’s private jet?

It's good to see that you've gotten over your meltdown. Just stay on your meds and you should do fine. Although you do seem to be hallucinating again.

You cannot believe in an absolutist, hardline with no exceptions “right to choose” and any meaningful rule of law. Law is intended to constrict and punish certain choices people make, that is the purpose of every law. You clearly know this, as you even specify prison as a result of unlimited free choice.

A choice I would like not to be legal is slaughtering a roomful of children.

You know damn well, no matter how stupid you pretend to be, that pro-choice and pro-life are both positive sounding brandings for differing positions in abortion, not absolutist universal philosophies. Neither makes any rational sense as an absolutist universal philosophy. You can throw a tantrum as much as you want, but every single person here is aware of this. This is an extreme and idiotic hill to plant your flag on.

At the time of this post, this thread has 4,473 views. My guess is a lot of people have read this thread, but they don't comment for whatever reason. My guess is also a lot of those people either consider their own political views as center, center-left or center-right. In other words, their somewhere in the middle, but might lean one direction or another. If you're in that category, then this post is for you.

Do you not see why we can't come together as a country and compromise on gun control? The extreme far left has tried to highjack this thread and have debates about meaning of words such as "pro-life," "pro-choice" or what "violent" means. They don't want to compromise, they would rather debate trivial things. Unless it starts with "ban, ban, ban" there is no compromise with these people.

In a compromise both sides give up something for the benefit of working out a deal. I'm personally willing to try things such as:

• Raising the minimum age to purchase a firearm
• More comprehensive background checks
• Waiting period
• Mental health examinations as needed
• Tighter school security (yes, I'm willing to pay more taxes)
• Open to other suggestions as well

But what is their focus? Debating meaningless words not relevant to the topic. Anyway, there have been many threads such as this in the past on here and there will probably continue to be more after the next tragedy, and the next and so on until the far left wants a true compromise. Again, both sides give up something in a compromise. But for now, nothing has changed, nothing will change until we can focus on the problem. Carry on.

I understand you are not going to change your mind and be a reasonable person. You are going to, no matter how fallacious it is, insist pro-life must be an absolutist universal philosophy with no exceptions ever under any circumstance, while not holding pro-choice to the same standards because that doesn’t fit your hyper partisan agenda. You will continue to pretend to be too stupid to know what the words actually mean in context. For an ideologue is never wrong, everyone else, common sense and the dictionary is.

I would love a link to “ all these threads” where I castigate people who pretend pro-life has a different meaning than it actually has. You know there is no other thread where this has happened. I hold numerous objectionable views, I’m sure you can find something vaguely true to smear me with.

The only statement I have made on abortion itself on Net54 is that the Texas bounty law is meant to punish the other side, just like gun control, and not actually solve a real problem. Not exactly a pro-life hardline view there. If pro-life is not about abortion, why must I give a take on abortion? You’ve been arguing vociferously that the phrase does not mean what me, the dictionary, and everyone else knows it means. I haven’t because the thread is about guns. You and BobC just had such nutball extremist takes I couldn’t resist pointing out the absurdity of the false pretenses of ignorance.

I naturally lean toward favoring the right of the individual over a right of the state. I used to be very pro-choice as a result. Safe, legal and rare. After deeper research, I have moderated my views but still fall closer to the pro-choice camp. A late second trimester fetus like the one David showed is a human. A sperm cell, I think is not. The exact line is difficult to draw. The first trimester seems a reasonable practical boundary to me. I very much favor a life of the mother exemption in any trimester; if it is late enough the baby may be delivered safely than I think this difficult choice of which life to take and which to save belongs with the mother. This is pro-choice, or was considered such not that long ago. I am disgusted by some of the extremist left positions of today, and these are partly what has slowly receded my support lately. I think it is extremely sad that “women’s rights” has largely become a phrase to mean access to any abortion at any time for any reason, among the hardliners even after birth. Post birth abortion is beyond vile and disgusting.

I have always, while I generally support the Roe decision on policy grounds, known it to be unconstitutional under the 10th. It is not left to the federal State under the constitution.

I am against the death penalty on unrelated grounds. Killing should be lawful if a guilty person is posing a real and present danger to an innocent person. By the time they are at trial, they are no longer a real and present danger, there is no defense. The death penalty is constitutional, but I think we should elect not to exercise it.

556 is around 60 cents a round. So he bought under $250 worth after factoring in sales tax.

DD rifles MSRP is around $2k.

The vest wouldn’t have been very expensive. The plates are where the cost goes up quickly.

Thank you. I found more information from other articles that the first rifle is a Smith and Wesson that goes for $800 and that he bought 1,600 total rounds, so at 60 cents a round that comes out to $960 which raises my original estimated total of $4,500 a little bit, but if he bought a cheap tactical vest for $30 rather than my guesstimate of $100 that would bring it back to around $4,500. Since money didn’t seem to be a concern to him I imagine he bought a pretty decent tactical vest, though.

- No. 18 is the adult age in society. If an 18 year old can sign a lease/mortgage, live on their own, be responsible for themselves and/or others (family, roommates, etc.), they should be able to defend themselves adequately against any and all threats.

- Not sure what this solves. The Uvalde shooter passed a background check.

- No. Nobody should have to wait for a tool to defend themselves/their families. Not to mention this prevents literally nothing as the Uvalde shooter/other shoots could just carry out his heinous act after the waiting period.

- No. This could be easily politicized and weaponized against sane people. Mental health is subjective in most cases. The Tulsa shooter had a botched surgery and snapped. Mental health checks wouldn't prevent that.

- Yes to this, but let's audit government for the funds before taxing Americans. Maybe the Congress slush fund can be emptied for starters.

- Other suggestions: hold society, Big Pharma, and government accountable. Raise better kids, uphold better basic values, fix our corrupt school system, quit pill shoving, etc. I'm not in the minority in refusing to give up liberties for someone else to feel safe. I live right, do my best to treat people right, and am a law abiding system.

Murder is already illegal. I don't believe many serial killers used firearms to commit their crimes. Murder is not restricted by the tool, but rather enabled by the absence of proper values, environment, treatment, etc. Additional laws won't prevent what is already illegal yet achievable by really any means necessary once someone commits to that act. Until we start having legitimate conversations about the real problems - Big Pharma, mental health, attentive families, non-corrupt education, etc. - nothing will change. It will only ever get worse.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Wow, where to begin? If someone cuts me off in traffic, I have choices of how I want to respond. I can (a) ignore it, (b) flip the person off, (c) kill the person. I have the right to select my response from any of the 3 choices I listed and probably several other choices. If I freely choose (c), then, I will rightfully be punished. I will be punished because it is against the law to act on (c). Do you not see how the right to choose is not dependent upon the rule of law? There are laws that prevent felons from owning guns. Does that take the felons choice away? NO. They can still choose to get a gun. But if they make that choice they risk going to jail. Making a law does not take away a person's choices, there is no correlation between a "law" and a "choice."

It appears your wish has been granted. It is currently illegal to slaughter a roomful of children. Actually, it has been for a long time. Unfortunately, some sick people choose to ignore the law.

So, let's get back to my original question. What choice(s)s do you think people should not have? And a follow-up question, how do you propose to take that choice away from people?

Are you sure I'm pretending? :D As I've pointed out, "pro-life" really isn't. And the problem with "pro-choice" is that when Roe gets overturned, the choice will still be there. But it will be illegal and the person performing the abortion and the woman would be in legal jeopardy. Plus the fact that the woman would be risking her life if she picked the wrong person to do the abortion. But, the choice is still there.

You have a lot of no's, do you have any suggestions?