Good point Joe, but there is some risk involved in illegals and drugs crossing because of the possibility of a border search.
No risk today of a search crossing the Illinois/Indiana border.
I hope a bomb is dropped on the NRA convention.
- Thread starter UTFO
- Start date
No risk today of a search crossing the Illinois/Indiana border.
This gobbledygook sounds like something Hoopsier or cray would post. Which probably is why they liked it...
Who are these "progressives" of whom you speak? The people advocating "medicare for all" which would fund the exact type of mental health and social programs that could deal with those type of issues? And the last 3 mass public shooters (MI ,Buf and Uvalde) were all "law abiding citizens" who just also happened to be demented. None of them obtained their weapon "illegally", although the kid in MI was given his by his mush for brains parents...
How exactly is anyone proposing "starting with law-abiding gun owners" by proposing raising the legal age to own an AR15, adopting universal background checks, waiting periods or red flag laws? How exactly does any of this hinder law-abiding citizens if they have nothing to hide...
And the whole "mental health" talking point would probably be better served if the Gov of the state where mass shootings are highest in the Nation (Texas) hadn't just slashed $211 MILLION from the budget of the HHSC (the agency that oversees mental health programs in Texas ) back in April.
Of course he had to fend off a primary challenge from the even crazier right wing, so he cut budgets from various state agencies to send Texas National Guard Troops to the border in his ill fated attempt at virtue signaling to wing nuts- Operation Lone Star. We can discuss that boondoggle elsewhere, but he cut more from the HHSC than any other agency, and cost the state of Texas about 4.2 Million when he instituted his "check every truck twice" farce.
So trying to lay "mental health issues" at the feet of "progressives in Congress" (whomever that is supposed to be) is the sign of someone that should probably get educated before posting nonsense...
Gov. Abbott attributes mass shootings to mental health issues a month after cutting $211 million from mental health commission
Abbott diverted the funds to add to his effort to send National Guard to the Texas-Mexico border, currently known as Operation Lone Star.www.ksat.com
Cars can be. What about millions of people crossing over by foot that are just strolling in?
What laws would there be to break? Buying a gun prior to turning 18? I'm pretty sure I could have bought a gun at 17 or 16 for that fact and no one would have known. If I were caught with it I'm not sure how you could prove it was mine because I sure as hell wouldn't admit to it.
I guess we could enact right to carry laws, that would be interesting since it was just made easier to carry and conceal than when I got my permit years ago. Laws just make people feel good, I'm pretty sure drugs have been illegal for decades and we have big issues with them. Hell if you aren't a major distributor the cops just let you keep on keeping on as they need the bigger fish. (So I've been told by several on our county drug task force).
I wouldn't have responded but since you felt the need to mention me.This gobbledygook sounds like something Hoopsier or cray would post. Which probably is why they liked it...
Who are these "progressives" of whom you speak? The people advocating "medicare for all" which would fund the exact type of mental health and social programs that could deal with those type of issues? And the last 3 mass public shooters (MI ,Buf and Uvalde) were all "law abiding citizens" who just also happened to be demented. None of them obtained their weapon "illegally", although the kid in MI was given his by his mush for brains parents...
How exactly is anyone proposing "starting with law-abiding gun owners" by proposing raising the legal age to own an AR15, adopting universal background checks, waiting periods or red flag laws? How exactly does any of this hinder law-abiding citizens if they have nothing to hide...
And the whole "mental health" talking point would probably be better served if the Gov of the state where mass shootings are highest in the Nation (Texas) hadn't just slashed $211 MILLION from the budget of the HHSC (the agency that oversees mental health programs in Texas ) back in April.
Of course he had to fend off a primary challenge from the even crazier right wing, so he cut budgets from various state agencies to send Texas National Guard Troops to the border in his ill fated attempt at virtue signaling to wing nuts- Operation Lone Star. We can discuss that boondoggle elsewhere, but he cut more from the HHSC than any other agency, and cost the state of Texas about 4.2 Million when he instituted his "check every truck twice" farce.
So trying to lay "mental health issues" at the feet of "progressives in Congress" (whomever that is supposed to be) is the sign of someone that should probably get educated before posting nonsense...
Gov. Abbott attributes mass shootings to mental health issues a month after cutting $211 million from mental health commission
Abbott diverted the funds to add to his effort to send National Guard to the Texas-Mexico border, currently known as Operation Lone Star.
Gobbledygook ''language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.''
There could be no finer example of that than reading your posts.
I am keeping my eye on Canada as they now have a hand gun freeze. You can't buy,trade, or sell a gun. Let's see if they are safer. Obviously if you are a gun owner or want to be one in Canada you are now not as free as those in the U.S. because of our 2nd Amendment.
Your point about the vast majority of gun owners being law abiding is a great one. How could taking their guns away stop any of this violence? In an earlier post I said that if you magically and it would take actual magic to eliminate every gun from the U.S. then criminals would go into the business of smuggling guns into the U.S. just like criminals smuggle drugs into the country. Then the criminals would have guns and the good people would have no way of defending themselves. My view and I believe the correct view is that the 2nd Amendment is all about self defense. We have a complete right to protect ourselves from any enemy whether foreign or domestic.
You got that right VPM, per usual. Jesus needed a gun!!! If nothing else it could have bought him a little time to hatch a plan.
Guns would have put a dent in the stoning business tho. "Hmmmm. Are there any. Woman here today...."
Let he who is without sin to be the first to pop a cap in that bitch?
There is a common denominator of mental health issues in ALL mass shootings? So if Tucker Carlson and Gendron both use the same replacement theory rhetoric (and they did) does that mean Carlson is mentally ill and should not be able to spew his garbage on tv and influence Gendron?
And all of the people who followed his link to his discord chat, which he spread in groups of "like-minded" people. None of them, including a retired FBI agent even tried to notify authorities of Gendron's plans, even though he posted everything, including drawings of his target for all of them to see... So do they all suffer from the same "mental health" issues?
"Your youth is detected in your rhetoric. BTW, all three listed above oppose arming LE in schools to harden them as potential targets"
First off if the "you" in that quote is supposed to mean me, I am 67 yrs old... And as for the other nonsense- are you listening to yourself? You are using phrases like "hardening them as potential TARGETS, to describe a freaking SCHOOL. That alone, and the fact that there is nowhere else in the world aside from an actual military conflict where anything remotely close to that terminology wouldn't be regarded as LUNACY...Is that what some of you wingnuts mean when you brag about "American Exceptionalism"?
Here's the thing... Try as you might you can't come up with a single factor to blame for all the gun violence in the US that distinguishes us from the rest of the world other than the availability of guns to people who shouldn't have them. Jim Jordan, who is an expert at NOT protecting kids, made an idiot of himself yesterday when he basically said that no laws would stop mass shootings so we shouldn't try to do anything. Republicans look stupid blaming doors, drugs, video games... MTG who isn't even the stupidest Pub in Congress wants to blame the "gay/trans mafia" and Laura Ingraham blamed pot the other night...
But you can buy weed and hash openly in places like Amsterdam and Copenhagen, and Switzerland which has a huge gun owning citizenry but much more stringent regulation and control than the US has FIVE cities among the Top 10 in Europe in terms of cocaine use. So the issue that distinguishes those situations from the US is not less drug use but rather that they don't let all those people on drugs have access to firearms.
And one more point on your "mental health" issue. If you want to make the ridiculous claim that "mental health" is a common denominator in all mass shootings, then why aren't you in favor of waiting periods and red flag laws? Those basic measures, in addition to universal background checks would have likely resulted in NONE of the 3 most recent teenage serial killers having access to the weapon they used.
Since there wasn't any waiting period or uniform red flag laws in place, whoever sold Gendron the AR-15 was unaware that police in his 5,000 resident small town had visited him at school a year ago in regards to threats he made. Employees at the gun shop where Ramos bought his AR-15 likely didn't know that his fellow employees at Wendy's characterized him as creepy, avoided working shifts with him whenever possible and along with others in town had nicknamed him "next school shooter".
And when MI school shooter Crumbley's parents bought him his 9 MM, the seller likely didn't know that it was for a 15 yr old who people considered a weird loner who was known for drawing pics of and fantasizing about guns and ammo...
So exactly what is this "mental health" component? How do you fund it when GOP lawmakers are always cutting mental health budget initiatives and how do you envision it working? Explain to me how this is not just another empty platitude that is being offered by GOP lawmakers who are simply unwilling to confront the real issue and are just trying to deflect and pretend they are doing something?
Who’s trying to take away those people’s guns? Not the majority.
The majority want assault rifles banned, waiting periods, background checks, removal of immunity etc.
Those are what they admit to wanting RIGHT NOW. Get those things, and then it's the next, then the next and the next and the next AND THE NEXT. This all started with ONE firm rule and has morphed into this @$!!#^!^. Shall NOT be Inf@#$%ingfrindged upon.
Fix the people. Democrats please stop helping, you are killing us!
Ames shooter with sketchy background
with proper laws this guy could’ve been stopped from buying ammo an hour before the killings.
and how in the hell was he still part of the national guard?
with proper laws this guy could’ve been stopped from buying ammo an hour before the killings.
and how in the hell was he still part of the national guard?
what has morphed is you whack a doodle‘s interpretation of what a well regulated militia is.
Are YOU, coming to take my sh#$? I know the answer, now that is well regulated. You stay in line, I will too. Keep talking all "your" empathy, puff puff gorilla dust. I'll (reads we) will remain well regulated and prepared.
Now go fix the people. I'm not one of them.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Apparently you know little about the English language. I said stores didn't sell bombs. And they didn't.
Timothy made his bomb, he didn't buy it pre made at a store.
Nice try
Well, to follow the logic of a presently hatching conspiracy theory on another gun thread here, I guess we could say that the NRA is handing out free guns to people in Chicago so that conservatives can continue to prop up their argument and to drive sales.
I mean, it all fits, and we would be close-minded to dismiss it out of hand.
Lol. Wut!? What one firm rule did this start with?
Given your what laws won’t criminals break theory, then why do we have any laws period? If people are just going to break them, let’s do away with them all!
We can let the gun experts define it, if we find a few that give a shit about dead kids.
90% of laws are garbage and made up by the corrupt politicians that the US has generated for my entire lifetime to benefit themselves and ruin plenty of peoples lives. That is such a good plan to get rid of most of this garbage and the RepubloCRATS whom have been massive failures for the past 50 years and pass the torch to leaders who will actually do some good for the American people and run an efficient govt.
I'd say when this former NRA member describes gun enthusiasts not liking him because he knows his shit and isn't afraid to call them out, YOU are exactly the type of person he is talking about. He quit the NRA in response to a mailing he got from LaPierre a few days after the Okla City Bombing basically endorsing McVea's anti- Govt sentiments...
"Every time there’s a mass shooting, a lot of people go on social media and demand action to stop the carnage.
And they are met there with a well-rehearsed chorus of enduring myths and misinformation about guns that shouldn’t go unchallenged, but usually does.
The people who post these myths don’t like me a lot, because I’ve been a gun enthusiast for more than 40 years, have fired thousands of rounds from guns of all types, I know what I’m talking about and I’m willing to call out lies when I see them."
Busting gun-culture myths that always surface after mass shootings; let’s get real
Uvalde, Texas school shooting spurs spurious rhetoric on why to do nothing. Here’s how to confront it | Commentary
Well since you asked, I'll defer again to Dion Lefler, who relishes exposing gun myths...Sounds like he's been reading some of the posts from this board...
I actually DO remember that AR-15s were characterized as "assault weapons" previously, and suddenly the nomenclature changed around 2009. So I really didn't understand the semantics game you guys have been playing, until he pointed out the marching orders that came from the NSSF. Based on the amount of like minded posters echoing that point on this thread I'd say the mission has proven highly successful...
"AR-15s aren’t assault rifles’
One of the most common tactics used by gun culturists is to try to belittle their opponents’ knowledge of firearms.By their lights, anyone who calls an AR-15 or one of its many variants an “assault rifle” is uninformed and not worth listening to.
They’ll tell you the only “real” assault rifles are “selective fire,” which gives the user the choice of shooting multiple bullets with one trigger pull, while the AR-15 fires only one bullet per pull.
And they almost always point out that AR doesn’t stand for assault rifle, but for Armalite rifle, after the company that originated it.
The AR does stand for Armalite, but that’s about as true as this myth gets. The gun was developed under a Pentagon bid specification — I’ve read it — specifically seeking a “semi-automatic assault rifle” for troops.
Armalite sold the design to Colt, which cranked out two versions — the military M-16 in selective fire and the civilian AR-15 in semi-automatic.
AR-15s and their copycats — along with cheaper Chinese knockoffs of the Soviet AK-47 — were called assault rifles in gun catalogs, gun magazines and by owners until well into the 2000s.
But the term got a bad reputation after assault rifles became the weapon of choice for random mass shootings, because they’re the most capable and formidable weapons a civilian can buy.
In 2009, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry trade association, coined a new and softer term — “modern sporting rifle” — and demanded everybody use it.
Gun magazines and lots of mainstream news sources, including the Associated Press which I ordinarily respect, have changed their style to refer to assault rifles by more warm-and-fuzzy euphemisms."
It’s already been defined by the experts.
An assault rifle is “a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.” Emphasis mine.
Those are already banned.
The amount of gaslighting on this issue is mind numbing. It leads 2A supporters like me to not trust anyone on this issue because the ones who howl the loudest are the ones who know the least.
So besides thoughts and prayers what do you propose? Could you live with any form of raising the age?
See, this is what I’m talking about. If the technical definition of assault rifle is changed as it is above, then ANY semiautomatic rifle, or handgun for that matter, becomes an “assault” weapon.I'd say when this former NRA member describes gun enthusiasts not liking him because he knows his shit and isn't afraid to call them out, YOU are exactly the type of person he is talking about. He quit the NRA in response to a mailing he got from LaPierre a few days after the Okla City Bombing basically endorsing McVea's anti- Govt sentiments...
"Every time there’s a mass shooting, a lot of people go on social media and demand action to stop the carnage.
And they are met there with a well-rehearsed chorus of enduring myths and misinformation about guns that shouldn’t go unchallenged, but usually does.
The people who post these myths don’t like me a lot, because I’ve been a gun enthusiast for more than 40 years, have fired thousands of rounds from guns of all types, I know what I’m talking about and I’m willing to call out lies when I see them."
Busting gun-culture myths that always surface after mass shootings; let’s get real
Uvalde, Texas school shooting spurs spurious rhetoric on why to do nothing. Here’s how to confront it | Commentarywww.yahoo.com
Well since you asked, I'll defer again to Dion Lefler, who relishes exposing gun myths...Sounds like he's been reading some of the posts from this board...
I actually DO remember that AR-15s were characterized as "assault weapons" previously, and suddenly the nomenclature changed around 2009. So I really didn't understand the semantics game you guys have been playing, until he pointed out the marching orders that came from the NSSF. Based on the amount of like minded posters echoing that point on this thread I'd say the mission has proven highly successful...
"AR-15s aren’t assault rifles’
One of the most common tactics used by gun culturists is to try to belittle their opponents’ knowledge of firearms.
By their lights, anyone who calls an AR-15 or one of its many variants an “assault rifle” is uninformed and not worth listening to.
They’ll tell you the only “real” assault rifles are “selective fire,” which gives the user the choice of shooting multiple bullets with one trigger pull, while the AR-15 fires only one bullet per pull.
And they almost always point out that AR doesn’t stand for assault rifle, but for Armalite rifle, after the company that originated it.
The AR does stand for Armalite, but that’s about as true as this myth gets. The gun was developed under a Pentagon bid specification — I’ve read it — specifically seeking a “semi-automatic assault rifle” for troops.
Armalite sold the design to Colt, which cranked out two versions — the military M-16 in selective fire and the civilian AR-15 in semi-automatic.
AR-15s and their copycats — along with cheaper Chinese knockoffs of the Soviet AK-47 — were called assault rifles in gun catalogs, gun magazines and by owners until well into the 2000s.
But the term got a bad reputation after assault rifles became the weapon of choice for random mass shootings, because they’re the most capable and formidable weapons a civilian can buy.
In 2009, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry trade association, coined a new and softer term — “modern sporting rifle” — and demanded everybody use it.
Gun magazines and lots of mainstream news sources, including the Associated Press which I ordinarily respect, have changed their style to refer to assault rifles by more warm-and-fuzzy euphemisms."
So when Biden talks about banning “assault weapons”, he could literally be talking about any rifle that fires with each pull of the trigger.
Any definition that doesn't cover the weapons used in 95% of mass shootings, AR-15s and copycats, is inadequate. And no, almost nobody wants to ban any rifle that would have a legitimate non-warfare use. No, I am not an expert that can define it. My gun experience on a farm was a 0.22, various shotguns, my Dad had a handgun, and I had a variety of air rifles/pellet/BB guns.
Which god of yours? Molech? I'm guessing my house and my retirement that you have zero problem with the bodies piling up in the dumpster behind Planned Parenthood. Talk about ghouls. Oh, by the way, if case you haven't noticed, the NRA is the ONLY organization that is blamed for the actions and behavior of people who hate the NRA and post crap like the one above.
They don't like it when you compare abortions of viable babies with children in schools. They can't really tell you why it's not a good comparison, but they know they don't like it.
DANC, you can't have a legit conversation or debate with a marxist. It's only reply is, "for the love of god... stop hating... or I'll kill you, your family, and anyone who disagrees with me... because that's love... you racist bigot!"
"See, this is what I’m talking about. If the technical definition of assault rifle is changed as it is above, then ANY semiautomatic rifle, or handgun for that matter, becomes an “assault” weapon."
He's saying that YOU changed the definition, and states that the AR-15 was created by Armalite in response to a Pentagon bid specification specifically seeking a "semi-automatic ASSAULT RIFLE for troops. He maintains that he's seen the bid specification- are you claiming he's lying?
He further adds...
"Armalite sold the design to Colt, which cranked out two versions — the military M-16 in selective fire and the civilian AR-15 in semi-automatic."
So if the Pentagon ordered an "assault rifle" and in response Colt developed TWO versions, one (the M-16) for Armalite to sell to Military contractors and the other (the AR-15) to be sold to civilians, isn't it you who is changing the technical defitnition of what the Army ordered from Armalite? The original distinction was between "selective fire" and "semi-automatic". But Armalite/Colt originally marketed both as "assault rifles", until the name took on a more sinister reputation and the gun's rights groups changed the meaning of "assault rifle" in their marketing in 2009.
Seriously Dude you're stroking a guy who basically just labelled UTFO (who rarely posts) as a Marxist? In all likelihood this vertical chump is deliberately trolling, but invoking Molech the God of child sacrifice to tar someone who makes a pro-choice post is something akin to those nuts who bomb clinics and kill doctors...
We've already got one Nazi who posts anti-semitic diatribes. You encouraging another of that ilk is not really a good look for the board...
I’m trying to make sense of this. The definition of an “assault rifle” hasn’t changed. It’s the same as it’s always been, regardless of how the army specifies that it wants a particular rifle made.
So how does the army’s particular language in ordering this weapon somehow mean that I’VE changed the definition of what an assault rifle is?
Help me understand. I’m genuinely having trouble deciphering the point you’re trying to make
The term “assault weapon” is a useless way to describe the problem. I suspect the Democrats poll and focus group tested “assault weapon” and that was found to be the best at getting the Democrat base cranked up. Better would be to describe the weapons to be restricted or prohibited by how they operate and size and velocity of the round they fire.
The Democrats political objectives are clearly shown by what they don’t propose for gun control such as more stop and frisk and more grounds for confiscating guns through stop and frisk. Biden could also come down in favor of stiffer penalties for crimes with a gun. The blue city prosecutors are increasingly lenient with that.
You don’t need to read any of his posts to know the point he’s trying to make. It’s the same every time- Dems good, Pubs bad…
Instead of viewing it as a violent act think of it as a counter-argument. Communication in a solid form to get the point across.
