Gun ownership poll

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by irv

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?

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

[irv]

Originally Posted by nwobhm

Have to be in complete disagreement with this statement. What we are seeing is a symptom of a much larger problem. Lots of moving parts here and guns aren’t it.

1) Liberal takeover of the educational system
2) The internet
3) First person shooter video games
4) Unlimited availability to pornography
5) Food additives
6) Overall dietary changes from fats to carbs
7) Unknown medication conflicts
8) Contaminated water supplies
9) Hollywood

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.

[G1911]

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.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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

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?

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by irv

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!

[irv]

Originally Posted by G1911

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/

[Directly]

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,

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Steve D

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

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?

[Cliff Bowman]

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?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

5) who decides what is violent?

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

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?

$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).

[G1911]

Originally Posted by irv

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/

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.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

$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).

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Ken Sulik,

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.

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

[clydepepper]

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.
.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Ken Sulik,

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.

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.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Ke.n 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.

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.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

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.
.

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

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Oh and Michael, by the way, regarding that "extreme" view of when life begins.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

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.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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.

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

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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.

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

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Fair point.

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?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Deertick

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.

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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

I think first person shooter games are violent. Do you? But what about Wipeout? Circus Atari?

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.

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

blah, blah, blah...unintelligible ramblings...blah, blah, blah

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

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Ke.n S.uli.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!

[Cliff Bowman]

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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

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.

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.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

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?

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Steve D

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

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

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

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

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

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

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?

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

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?

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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

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?

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.

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

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?

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.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by nwobhm

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.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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

- 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

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

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."

Originally Posted by G1911

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

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?

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

Are you sure I'm pretending? 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.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

- 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

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

[clydepepper]

116484924_3862829680400176_1227758726167921261_n.jpg

[clydepepper]

137362240_10221590057119762_167312164444085994_n.jpg142726938_887028468726790_5439366187022353631_o.jpg

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Attachment 519396Attachment 519397

Is your profile picture/avatar Ken Holtzman?

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by G1911

I understand you are not going to change your mind and be a reasonable person.

Oh, here we go. If I don't agree with you, I'm not a reasonable person. I get you now.

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

Please provide a link to the post where I "insist pro-life must be an absolutist universal philosophy with no exceptions ever under any circumstance." I have said repeatedly that it makes no sense to me how someone who claims to be "pro-life" can be for the death penalty. And also, what is my "hyper partisan agenda?" I've said I would like to keep abortion legal. Is that my "hyper partisan agenda? If it is, do you use the same terminology for "pro-lifers?"

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

Oh, now I'm an ideologue. That's very Aristocratic of you. Out of curiosity, how did you survive the early 2010s? The movie "Catfish" came out in 2010. People starting using the term "catfish" as something other than the dictionary definition: "any of an order (Siluriformes) of chiefly freshwater stout-bodied scaleless bony fishes having long tactile barbels." It wasn't until 2014 that the new definition was added to the dictionary. In the meantime, how did you react to anyone who used the term as "a person who sets up a false personal profile on a social networking site for fraudulent or deceptive purposes." Did you point out they weren't using the term as defined in the dictionary? Did you accuse them of being unreasonable if they didn't agree with you to stop using it in the fallacious manner? Did you call them an ideologue? Just curious.

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

My bad. I meant posts. My apologies.

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

My first post in this thread was Post 115. You first posted on this subject in Post 97. But, yeah. You didn’t post until my “nutball extremist takes.” Sure, if it makes you feel better, disregard the truth and keep telling yourself you only posted because of me.

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

Thanks for this response. We agree for the most part on the abortion issue. We disagree on the death penalty issue. I think, had he survived, the Uvalde killer would be a prime candidate for the death penalty.

[KCRfan1]

Thank you for the laughs Ray!!!!!

We needed this.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

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

Yes. Please refer back to my post and read more closely.

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.

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.

[Leon]

News Flash

David James, aka Vintagetoppsguy, is taking another time out for circumventing the name rules on the forum. Outing other members full names, without anything masking it to prevent searches, is not happening. That was also his 4th infraction.
Please continue and try not to get political. Thanks
.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

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."

Okay. So everywhere in the world there is the right to have an abortion and always will be. It's just the law punishing people for their free 'choice'. What's the point of discussing abortion at all if you think there is a universalist right to it is already present?

Originally Posted by AustinMike

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?

What choices do I think people should not have? - Already answered. I think you are picking your words wrong again. I am not in favor of rolling back rights. I am generally in favor of expanding them, as I have written several times. I generally believe things with a clear and identifiable victim should be illegal, and everything else legal, whether or not I agree with it. I do not agree with using drugs, but if my neighbor wants to smoke a joint that's not my business. I don't think my neighbor has the right to hurt people though.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Are you sure I'm pretending? 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.

At this point, I'm less positive my faith that people can read the dictionary and be generally aware of the world around them and apply some common sense may be slightly off base in this particular case.

We have already addressed what pro-choice and pro-life actually means, about 50 times. You and BobC are the only ones evidently incapable of understanding that words have meanings, that are not picked on the whims of any single individual.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Oh, here we go. If I don't agree with you, I'm not a reasonable person. I get you now.

You are not reasonable because you refuse to accept that language is not up to your sole arbitration and refuse to apply common sense, context or the dictionary.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Please provide a link to the post where I "insist pro-life must be an absolutist universal philosophy with no exceptions ever under any circumstance." I have said repeatedly that it makes no sense to me how someone who claims to be "pro-life" can be for the death penalty. And also, what is my "hyper partisan agenda?" I've said I would like to keep abortion legal. Is that my "hyper partisan agenda? If it is, do you use the same terminology for "pro-lifers?"

Every one of your posts, this has been your thesis. That pro-life must be pro-life in any and all circumstances, with no exception, no context, nothing but an absolute hardline, an appeal to purity definition. You are not treating pro-choice and pro-life to the same standards. If pro-life is to be treated in this way, then logically so too must pro-choice. What other reason is there for it besides you like one and not the other? Even if we ignore the rest of the world, common English usage and the dictionary, you keep insisting pro-life is a misleading and false branding while refusing to treat pro-choice in the same way. This is political, not logical.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Oh, now I'm an ideologue. That's very Aristocratic of you. Out of curiosity, how did you survive the early 2010s? The movie "Catfish" came out in 2010. People starting using the term "catfish" as something other than the dictionary definition: "any of an order (Siluriformes) of chiefly freshwater stout-bodied scaleless bony fishes having long tactile barbels." It wasn't until 2014 that the new definition was added to the dictionary. In the meantime, how did you react to anyone who used the term as "a person who sets up a false personal profile on a social networking site for fraudulent or deceptive purposes." Did you point out they weren't using the term as defined in the dictionary? Did you accuse them of being unreasonable if they didn't agree with you to stop using it in the fallacious manner? Did you call them an ideologue? Just curious.

See above. Words change in usage as time goes and new slang comes. 'Catfish' is not the result of one individual just pretending a phrase they don't like means something else and screeching that the entire rest of the country is using it wrong. You must know this is an absurd argument. I've said a lot, I'm sure you can find something to actually get me on. I've got a ton of posts to find an avenue of attack. It's not that difficult.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

My first post in this thread was Post 115. You first posted on this subject in Post 97. But, yeah. You didn’t post until my “nutball extremist takes.” Sure, if it makes you feel better, disregard the truth and keep telling yourself you only posted because of me.

Read. The transcript is public and visible to all. What I said and you even quoted was "You and BobC just had such nutball extremist takes I couldn’t resist pointing out the absurdity of the false pretenses of ignorance." Post 97 is me replying to BobC. So... exactly in line with what I said...

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Thanks for this response. We agree for the most part on the abortion issue. We disagree on the death penalty issue. I think, had he survived, the Uvalde killer would be a prime candidate for the death penalty.

Perhaps we can agree that it is amusing we don't disagree very much on the actual issue.

[The-Cardfather]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I own zero guns. I hesitate to comment further due to the "don't talk politics" rule.

Ditto. (And I "identify" as Republican / right wing.)

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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.

I'm a Conservative Republican who voted for Trump twice. I stay away from these discussions because they always turn ugly and in thd end, nobody ever has their mind changed. So, I don't see the point.