I hope a bomb is dropped on the NRA convention.
- Thread starter UTFO
- Start date
I'm only going to comment on your last answer. $75,000,000,000.00 is not feasible that is why IMO the second amendment exists. Also, if the gunman was in the school 40 minutes he could quite easily used a number of guns to murder many not just an AR type the type he used is just probably what he sees being used in the video games he probably played nightly.
I bet if we didn't guard government buildings and used those resources on our schools some actions might change? I know that when my daughters went to school the middle school and high school both had an armed police officers on duty all day and the doors were locked especially at the elementary level.
"AK-47" STYLE. PISTOL. An AK-47 is not a PISTOL. Dumbass.Or maybe the "usual dumbasses" keep up on current events and actual news stories, unlike you...
Pretty sure the words student, car and outside of school all appear in this news story about another possible school shooting (in Texas, the flagship state of "open carry" btw) being thwarted after the Uvalde tragedy...
AK-47 style pistol found in North Texas student’s car outside school
Police in North Texas arrested a student after an AK-47 style pistol was allegedly found in the teen’s car in the school parking lot.www.kwtx.com
4
At least google before launching a mindless personal attack,. Especially when the person you're attacking is presenting facts, and you're trying to play semantic word games and apparently earn a Like from Lucy...
I told you to get your nomenclature right and you had no clue what I was saying. You just went ahead and regurgitated whatever you saw.
I find that line of thinking horribly misguided. How much less 'free' are Australians? Swedes? Residents of the UK? Other than owning a bunch of guns, how demonstrably less free are citizens of other western, first world countries than us in the US? Yes, we enjoy a lot of freedoms, but it's not like every other country lives under the thumb of iron rule. It's not the US with limitless freedoms with everyone else living under Sharia Law.
And I'd like a link to your '99% of gun owners are 100% law abiding citizens' stat. You can't just throw stuff like that around. Nearly 100% of the crazies on this board will believe you.
Because those are controlled societies. They don't have the civil liberties we do.
What's that Ben Franklin said? "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Nowhere on this thread or anywhere else have a made a statement contrary to your first paragraph.
I guess the larger point I've failed ot make is that we as a country need to find ways to mitigate that fear other than giving everyone the freedom to arm themselves to the teeth. The number of gun deaths a year proves that experiment has failed society.
Give me a break. Ben Franklin wasn't talking about a collective shrug to semi-regular mass shootings in churches and schools. I don't believe he was a psychopath or a sociopath.
I think the larger point here is that if you're getting into the weeds of the types of guns that can kill a lot of people in a short amount of time in varying degrees, maybe all of those guns should be on the side of banned weapons.
Many lives have been saved by citizens lawfully carrying a firearm who protected others from monsters carrying knives and guns. Ask anyone who was the recipient of that protection if they agree with the OP. May the orchestra of crickets begin to play.
No, I think the larger issue is, labeling a gun that is not automatic as an 'assault weapon or rifle" by ammo type would encompass most hunting rifles. Are we going to ban hunting rifles?
But once again, the gun isn't the problem. It's pretty obvious the problem is disturbed youth who want to commit suicide and take others with them.
He was talking in general and you're tailoring it to suit your particulary viewpoint.
What he said is what he said - you can adhere to that or not. But at least be consistent.
Maybe you should think about moving? You sound like someone that would love having the Government dictate every aspect of your life.
Unless there's a law that limits abortion.
Then, it's ALL about civil liberties......
Armed to the teeth? If an individual wants to own and gun and pass all checks and balances he should be able to have as many as he wants. The last time I checked you could only shoot one at a time.
I would love to hear how we can "mitigate" fear. I have one option I will give you, punish the criminal make him/her feel the pain. Put the fear of consequences for one's actions on the bad guy and make him/her have fear. My daughter just bought a house and put a security system in place, we were there as they installed. The guy asked me if I would be interested in one, I told him I already had one. He asked my provider I said Smith and Wesson.
Quite honestly I'm not sure how much less free those countries are that the US? I do wonder why more are not fleeing to those countries to get out of a place they seem so bad with no control over issues they deem important?
My comment said 99% of legal gun owners are 100% law abiding citizen's. It is my own personal stat that encompasses knowing about 500-600 individuals that do legally own guns and are all assets to society.
I'll add.. Public notice like the arrest reports in the paper.
"Be advised, we will be releasing Bad guy #1 at 11AM, tomorrow on the corner of walk and don't walk. be advised that there will be no police presence and no cameras in the area for 30 minutes so take your own actions to prevent crime".
Ben Franklin wasn't talking about what you believe he was. His quote was about a tax dispute - NOT giving up personal freedoms (e.g., gun rights) in exchange for increased safety. What he was referring to is almost the exact opposite of what you think it means. His quote was about the Penn family persuading the Pennsylvania governor to veto a bull that would have taxed their (Penns') land to pay for the defense of frontier lands. Instead the Penns wanted to give them a lump sum of money, which would have only provided for "temporary security."
How The World Butchered Benjamin Franklin's Quote On Liberty Vs. Security | TechCrunch
One of America's favorite liberal phrases has been sent through the political spin machine and polished into a Frankenstein of sorts, thus rendering it
techcrunch.com
I believe the statement stands on its own wording.Ben Franklin wasn't talking about what you believe he was. His quote was about a tax dispute - NOT giving up personal freedoms (e.g., gun rights) in exchange for increased safety. What he was referring to is almost the exact opposite of what you think it means. His quote was about the Penn family persuading the Pennsylvania governor to veto a bull that would have taxed their (Penns') land to pay for the defense of frontier lands. Instead the Penns wanted to give them a lump sum of money, which would have only provided for "temporary security."
How The World Butchered Benjamin Franklin's Quote On Liberty Vs. Security | TechCrunch
One of America's favorite liberal phrases has been sent through the political spin machine and polished into a Frankenstein of sorts, thus rendering it
I realize it's popular today to walk back, or explain, statements made by public officials like Biden who blurt out the truth every now and then. But what Franklin was saying applies to personal liberties as well.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
If Franklin had only meant it refered to taxes, he would have said taxes. But he didn't. He meant it in the broader term in exactly the words he wrote.
Actually, I think it's the complete opposite.
(Yeah, I'm being a grammar nazi dick, and that was probably just an autocorrect, but it is kinda funny. I am also sure that I am making some kind of grammatical error in this post, which would make me a hypocrite)
I saw that story yesterday and thought there is NO WAY Cosmic isn’t breathlessly posting that on the cooler tomorrow. He’s the mark for nonsense like that and he runs with it.
The article itself mentions the guy was found with “an AK-47 style pistol and a replica AR-15 style Orbeez rifle”.
AK-47 style pistol is bad enough but they also fail to mention that an Orbeez rifle is actually a PAINTBALL gun.
The level of dishonesty in the media and the ignorance of those like Cosmic make it impossible to have any trust whatsoever in them.
He's probably thinking of the recent smash and grab at the Louis Vuitton store here in Cincy. After all, the pastor apparently thinks it's entirely appropriate to use a gun to protect property and there were more than 7 perps.
And if you dropped one, they would have immediately scattered. If you have ever had the unfortunate luck to be anywhere close to a gun battle, 95% of people generally scatter / run for cover when the first shot is fired.
40? No, you're not a boomer. You're not even gen x. You're a goddamn millennial.
It's all good brother. Half my purpose here is to provide a touch of levity to the board and spout non-sequitur 80's references.
It’s an eminent danger law. You have to be directly threatened or harmed. You can’t just shoot people who are stealing property.
Yup. Absolutely. Again, the purpose is more of proving that there are very few instances realistically where you are going to need an AR-15 for protection. Regardless of whether the action was justifiable or not,
Most born in the early 80s are closer to x’ers. I married one but her Brother? Total millennial.
Guy shot two people (killed one) in a local Wal-Mart last night after people tried to stop him from shoplifting some electronics. He killed a shopper and wounded the Wal-Mart greeter.
Yeah, if you are going to go the "I need it to defend myself from the government when they become tyrannical" angle, I've got news for you: If Joe Biden told his top general that he wanted you dead by tomorrow, there is no amount of AR-15's in this world that are going to keep you and your house from being a smoking crater by dawn's early light.
That’s true individually. It’s also interpreted as defending you from enemies “foreign” and domestic. That’s really the fight. It really does boil down to that.
My guess is that people don't move because they have lives, families, jobs and communities here. Just because they don't like one aspect of society doesn't mean they have to pick up their ball and go home (or away as it may seem).
In short, I think a lot of people could be happy in other places, but are invested in where they are and are committed to fixing problems.
But if he doesn't have the AR do the cops engage him b/c they would be outgunning him at that point?
