Mass shooting at El Paso Walmart/and also Dayton OH

[LeviF]

7 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

When the 2nd was written dueling was still legal as well.

 

I think you'll find more support for legalized dueling than you will for the 2nd here.

[ExiledInIllinois]

3 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

I think you'll find more support for legalized dueling than you will for the 2nd here.

LoL... 

 

I support the 2nd.  Just make infringable (is that a word?) like the 1st can be infringed on.

 

Guns are a public nuisance.  There is no doubt about that.

 

We can get creative with taking some firearms away and not take them ALL away. We do with the 1st amendment.

[LeviF]

Just now, ExiledInIllinois said:

LoL... 

 

I support the 2nd.  Just make infringable (is that a word?) like the 1st can be infringed on.

 

Guns are a public nuisance.  There is no doubt about that.

 

We can get creative with taking some firearms away and not take them ALL away. We do with the 1st amendment.

 

This ignores not only the philosophy behind the 1st and 2nd Amendments, but also the plain text in each.

 

As it stands now, I will no longer debate gun control with anybody.  I won't comply with further laws.  I will not call my representatives to urge them to vote pro-2A as it is a useless waste of time.  If anybody wants my firearms, you are welcome to murder me to take them.  I'll be sitting in my home peacefully as I have for years. 

 

Eat my whole entire ass, thank you.

[Gugny]

4 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

This ignores not only the philosophy behind the 1st and 2nd Amendments, but also the plain text in each.

 

As it stands now, I will no longer debate gun control with anybody.  I won't comply with further laws.  I will not call my representatives to urge them to vote pro-2A as it is a useless waste of time.  If anybody wants my firearms, you are welcome to murder me to take them.  I'll be sitting in my home peacefully as I have for years. 

 

Eat my whole entire ass, thank you.

 

Not for nothin', but you barely even have an ass, you skinny mother *****.

[GaryPinC]

17 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Switzerland has interesting gun laws.  They have a lot of guns - 2 million in a nation of 8 million (including babies).  It's quite common for families to go to the range and shoot together.  " Switzerland hasn't had a mass shooting since 2001, when a man stormed the local parliament in Zug, killing 14 people and then himself. ........ In 2016, the country had 47 attempted homicides with firearms. The country's overall murder rate is near zero. "

Many Swiss see gun ownership as part of a patriotic duty to protect their homeland - a lot of the same language people who favor gun ownership here might say.

But the Swiss have very specific regulations on guns.  They have mandatory military training, of which safe gun use is an important part.  Military veterans may purchase their weapon, but they must obtain a permit.  Gun sellers have to follow strict licensing procedures, and Cantons (roughly equivalent to our states, but the size of a large US county) issue permits and keep a log of guns owned in their jurisdiction.  Gun owners who want to carry their weapon for "defensive purposes" must prove they can properly load, unload, and shoot their weapon and must pass a test to get a license.  And yes, guns need to be locked up when not in use and safed when being transported.

We require people to prove they can safely drive a car and restrict the licenses of people not able to operate a vehicle safely (impaired vision, interlock after drunk driving).  I like guns, I use guns, but I don't understand where the fanatical foaming refusal to allow any kind of regulations on guns comes from.

 

 

Right on, with freedom comes responsibility.  Except when you want to buy/own a gun, then we fight responsibility tooth and nail.  I say this as someone who owns and uses 5 guns.  

[Hapless Bills Fan]

17 hours ago, Binghamton Beast said:

 

But what about the criminals that carry handguns illegally? What type of test do they have to pass?

 

What about them?  If permits are required, gun sales require specific procedures and checks, it's illegal to carry an unlicensed, unpermitted gun and required to lock up guns at home, then it becomes much more difficult for criminals to find guns to carry illegally. 

No law or regulation will address all problems or stop all crime.

What about we accept that and start trying some practical things that other countries have found effective WITHOUT banning private gun ownership?

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

What about we accept that and start trying some practical things that other countries have found effective WITHOUT banning private gun ownership?

 

 

Because the sad fact is, there IS a slippery slope, and once you allow one inch of regulation, the people who want TOTAL gun control will push for a total ban.

 

It's not even debatable.

 

[GaryPinC]

On 8/5/2019 at 1:52 PM, Gugny said:

 

 

Actually, I'm pretty sure Judas Priest was before either of these.  Actually went to trial, accused of subliminally telling two boys to commit suicide.

http://www.pbs.org/pov/dreamdeceivers/   

 

Yep, I remember watching this documentary with my dad back in 92 on PBS.  The tone was typical "heavy metal bad", "kids today....", but they guy dug into the situation enough it became plainly obvious the two young men were pretty screwed up from their family life.

[Beast]

3 hours ago, HeHateMe said:

 

Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. 

 

If a stronger background check stops 1 shooting, isn't that worth it?

 

Will it?

 

Or could stronger laws actually hinder someone stopping the a mass shooting?

[GaryPinC]

4 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Because the sad fact is, there IS a slippery slope, and once you allow one inch of regulation, the people who want TOTAL gun control will push for a total ban.

 

It's not even debatable.

 

The people who want total gun bans will push for that regardless.  As will the pro-NRA paranoids fight any regulation.   How about most of us in the middle stop letting them inhibit the common sense responsibilities which should have been instituted long ago?  

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, GaryPinC said:

The people who want total gun bans will push for that regardless.

Exactly. There is no appeasement of the anti-gunners. They want it all, and if you grant them a fraction of it, it won't stop them. Better to not tolerate any regulation.

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

34 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

This ignores not only the philosophy behind the 1st and 2nd Amendments, but also the plain text in each.

 

As it stands now, I will no longer debate gun control with anybody.  I won't comply with further laws.  I will not call my representatives to urge them to vote pro-2A as it is a useless waste of time.  If anybody wants my firearms, you are welcome to murder me to take them.  I'll be sitting in my home peacefully as I have for years. 

 

Eat my whole entire ass, thank you.

So... Now YOU, NOT the firearms are a public nuisance.

 

Send in the Marines!  ...To make sure Levi only has one muzzleloader like they did in 1789.

 

 

[Warcodered]

1 minute ago, Joe in Winslow said:

Exactly. There is no appeasement of the anti-gunners. They want it all, and if you grant them a fraction of it, it won't stop them. Better to not tolerate any regulation.

 

Alternatively there are people who want anarchy therefore we should probably never deregulate something or we may risk the desintigration of our society as a whole.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

Alternatively there are people who want anarchy therefore we should probably never deregulate something or we may risk the desintigration of our society as a whole.

 

OK, let's do it this way:

 

Since we're all in the mood for regulating things, how about we regulate leftist speech? No more rallies, no more left-leaning papers. Sounds good?

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

1 minute ago, Joe in Winslow said:

Exactly. There is no appeasement of the anti-gunners. They want it all, and if you grant them a fraction of it, it won't stop them. Better to not tolerate any regulation.

 

You honestly believe the anti-gun people are even against the classic firearms, like muzzleloaders... Or even more modern smooth bore shotguns?

 

Yeah... I can see the hand guns. Hand guns are made for killin', they ain't no good for nothin' else and if you like to drink your whiskey you might even shoot yourself.
So why don't we dump 'em people to the bottom of the sea before some ol' fool come around here wanna shoot either you or me.

2 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

OK, let's do it this way:

 

Since we're all in the mood for regulating things, how about we regulate leftist speech? No more rallies, no more left-leaning papers. Sounds good?

 

We can... When it becomes a public nuisance.  

 

But... You're not the one to declare it a public nuisance.

 

We are in agreement that guns are a public nuisance, right?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

You honestly believe the anti-gun people are even against the classic firearms, like muzzleloaders... Or even more modern smooth bore shotguns?

 

Yeah... I can see the hand guns. Hand guns are made for killin', they ain't no good for nothin' else and if you like to drink your whiskey you might even shoot yourself.
So why don't we dump 'em people to the bottom of the sea before some ol' fool come around here wanna shoot either you or me.

 

Yeah, man, there are people...including some in this thread I'm sure...who want all firearms banned. It's a reality.

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

9 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

Because the sad fact is, there IS a slippery slope, and once you allow one inch of regulation, the people who want TOTAL gun control will push for a total ban.

It's not even debatable.

 

So fine, let them push.  Push back.

It's a fallacy.   If the majority of people in the country don't want to ban guns, but do want gun regulation, it doesn't matter if extremists push, it won't happen.  But for people who use and respect guns to not even consider and discuss what kind of regulations might work in our country because "Oh Noes!   Sky might fall if we do!"

 

Irrational in my opinion.

 

Instead what happens is we get laws drafted by people who maybe have never used a gun, certainly never used a gun as a tool, with silly definitions of "assault weapon" or restrictions on the number of bullets in a clip that accomplish nothing.

 

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

Our POTUS demagoguery is a public nuisance.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Just now, Joe in Winslow said:

Yeah, man, there are people...including some in this thread I'm sure...who want all firearms banned. It's a reality.

 

It may be a reality.  So what?  So nothing can be done...because you're frightened of hypothetical extremists?  Cowboy up!

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

4 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

We are in agreement that guns are a public nuisance, right?

We most certainly are not.

 

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

So fine, let them push.  Push back.

It's a fallacy.   If the majority of people in the country don't want to ban guns, but do want gun regulation, it doesn't matter if extremists push, it won't happen.  But for people who use and respect guns to not even consider and discuss what kind of regulations might work in our country because "Oh Noes!   Sky might fall if we do!"

 

Irrational in my opinion.

 

Instead what happens is we get laws drafted by people who maybe have never used a gun, certainly never used a gun as a tool, with silly definitions of "assault weapon" or restrictions on the number of bullets in a clip that accomplish nothing.

 

 

It's because the have a right to not be infringed on.  Even the 1st doesn't grant that.

What the hell were the Founders thinking.  They were technologically immature.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

It may be a reality.  So what?  So nothing can be done...because you're frightened of hypothetical extremists?  Cowboy up!

 

This is how progressivism works.

 

As I'm against progressivism (it's a disease), yeah. I don't feel the need to accomodate their desires in the least.

 

It's not that nothing can be done, in my eyes. It's that nothing SHOULD be done.

 

There's a difference.

 

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

Just now, Joe in Winslow said:

We most certainly are not.

 

 

Okay... At least we are record stating this.

 

Then when is a public nuisance?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

5 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

OK, let's do it this way:

 

Since we're all in the mood for regulating things, how about we regulate leftist speech? No more rallies, no more left-leaning papers. Sounds good?

 

 

This seems to me like classic "Whataboutism".  Why not discuss and resolve one issue on its merits, and not try to conflate several issues and act like it's not possible to address one issue unless we address every other issue someone chooses to throw into the pot?

[Gugny]

12 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

Exactly. There is no appeasement of the anti-gunners. They want it all, and if you grant them a fraction of it, it won't stop them. Better to not tolerate any regulation.

 

 

To Gary's (more important) point ... this extremism goes both ways.

[Beast]

50 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

LoL... 

 

I support the 2nd.  Just make infringable (is that a word?) like the 1st can be infringed on.

 

Guns are a public nuisance.  There is no doubt about that.

 

We can get creative with taking some firearms away and not take them ALL away. We do with the 1st amendment.

 

I like that “We” term around a lot.

 

I bet you’ll be volunteering to go take those “firearms” away from people, huh?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

This seems to me like classic "Whataboutism".  Why not discuss and resolve one issue on its merits, and not try to conflate several issues and act like it's not possible to address one issue unless we address every other issue someone chooses to throw into the pot?

 

This is most CERTAINLY a relevant thought, Hap. The second amendment enshrines an inalienable right, much the same way the first does. If one of the inalienable rights is suddenly not inalienable, then why not the rest?

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

Just now, Binghamton Beast said:

 

I like that “We” term around a lot.

 

I bet you’ll be volunteering to go take those “firearms” away from people, huh?

Sure. But, I won't go in without training and backup.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

To Gary's (more important) point ... this extremism goes both ways.

Since when is it an extremist position to not want to surrender my rights to anyone else?

 

 

6 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Okay... At least we are record stating this.

 

Then when is a public nuisance?

 

People who are of the opinion that gun control is an answer to any problem.

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

From a guy who's smarter than just about anyone in this thread.

 

 

[Gugny]

Just now, Joe in Winslow said:

Since when is it an extremist position to not want to surrender my rights to anyone else?

 

 

 

It's extreme to think that nothing should be done about the gun violence problem in the United States.

 

It's extreme to think that there is ANY practical need for a semi-automatic weapon in the civilian world.

 

It's extreme to believe that most rational people are actually asking others to "surrender their rights."

 

It's extreme to think we need militias to prepare to fight against our own government.

 

It's extreme to think that it's practical to remove all guns from civilians.

 

There has been one President of the United States, ever, to say anything about taking people's guns.  The same one who expressed sorrow for the people of Toledo, OH, yesterday.

 

It's pure, unwarranted paranoia to believe that's the end goal, here, by ANYONE thinking about this rationally.  That is extreme.

[RaoulDuke79]

12 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Okay... At least we are record stating this.

 

Then when is a public nuisance?

The public is a public nuisance. Not the guns. Put 10,000 guns in the middle of the street and nothing will happen. Put 10,000 people in any place and your probably going to get a few #######s. Put 10,000 guns and 10,000 #######s in a place then there is a real issue. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

4 minutes ago, Gugny said:

It's pure, unwarranted paranoia to believe that's the end goal, here, by ANYONE thinking about this rationally.  That is extreme.

 

And that's the problem. No one's thinking about this rationally, nor do they ever after something like this happens. If we were thinking rationally, we'd be thinking like NDgT did in his tweet above. THAT is the rational response.

 

Your definition of extreme and mine are radically different.

 

Your odds of dying at the hands of a drunk driver are FAR greater than from a mass shooting. Should we restrict alcohol to law-abiding citizens to stop DUI?

 

How'd THAT work the last time it was tried?
 

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Joe in Winslow

[RaoulDuke79]

3 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

From a guy who's smarter than just about anyone in this thread.

 

 

He was derided and labeled callous for that tweet as well.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, RaoulDuke79 said:

He was derided and labeled callous for that tweet as well.

 

Yes by the hyper-emotional leftists of the twitterverse.

 

Hard to take any of those people seriously. That being said, he wasn't wrong in the least.

 

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Joe in Winslow

[Gugny]

2 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

And that's the problem. No one's thinking about this rationally, nor do they ever after something like this happens. If we were thinking rationally, we'd be thinking like NDgT did in his tweet above. THAT is the rational response.

 

Your definition of extreme and mine are radically different.

 

Your odds of dying at the hands of a drunk driver are FAR greater than from a mass shooting. Should we restrict alcohol to law-abiding citizens to stop DUI?

 

How'd THAT work the last time it was tried?
 

 

 

That tweet could have been written by an adolescent, because only an adolescent would make the comparisons he made.

 

It's like the old, "Uh, hut, someone ran over a bunch a people with a truck .. we should probably ban trucks, I reckon!" argument. 

 

It's weak, irrelevant, simple and shallow.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, Gugny said:

 

That tweet could have been written by an adolescent, because only an adolescent would make the comparisons he made.

 

It's like the old, "Uh, hut, someone ran over a bunch a people with a truck .. we should probably ban trucks, I reckon!" argument. 

 

It's weak, irrelevant, simple and shallow.

 

No, it's not. It's statistically and logically correct.

 

Rational thought isn't driving this debate. Emotion (inflamed by a sensationalist media) is.

 

[Gugny]

Just now, Joe in Winslow said:

 

No, it's not. It's statistically and logically correct.

 

Rational thought isn't driving this debate. Emotion (inflamed by a sensationalist media) is.

 

 

Please stop blaming the media.  That, too, is weak.  Very trumpish.  You're better than that (and him).

 

There is no practical need for military-style and/or semi-automatic weapons.  Zilch.  Zero.  No one is using single-shot firearms to carry out terrorist attacks.  It's ridiculous that these things are sold in stores to the public.

 

For what???

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

1 minute ago, Gugny said:

 

Please stop blaming the media.  That, too, is weak.  Very trumpish.  You're better than that (and him).

 

There is no practical need for military-style and/or semi-automatic weapons.  Zilch.  Zero.  No one is using single-shot firearms to carry out terrorist attacks.  It's ridiculous that these things are sold in stores to the public.

 

For what???

 

If it bleeds, it leads baby. Let's get every reporter out there to investigate this guy's family, tell his life story. Whatever were his motivations? Right, not a problem

 

If we were smart about these things, those shooters would die in anonymity. But we're not. I digress.

 

So, you're against semi-automatic weapons, huh? How about something like this:

 

There's no practical use for that kind of firearm in your mind? No reason a homeowner should want something like that? How's the police response time in Glens Falls these days? Probably better than in North Argyle.

 

[Beast]

34 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Sure. But, I won't go in without training and backup.

 

You have fun with that.

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Binghamton Beast