WTF has happened to my Country

[Chip Sylverne]

Anti gunners tell me why we don't have a national felon data base? one that every employer and gun sales person can access any time any where?

My opinion,,, we don't have a computer big enough.

or 97% would be black?

IF BLM is afraid of those who are killing them, why aren't they afraid of the blacks, by far they kill more of each other than any other group.

That is simple stats.

The difference Tom is that citizens are not supposed to be in fear of their lives from the people with the badges and uniforms who are sworn to serve and protect. Black people have reason to fear, proved out by the simple stats to which you refer.

 

[midlifeflyer]

We must have in mind a different idea of militia, or maybe you missed how I qualified anyone.

Sorry. I thought you were referring to the militia I mentioned in the post you quoted from - the one the 2nd Amendment talks about

 

[Lachlan]

What's is an assault weapon?

I did not know a piece of machinery was able to "assault" assault is a verb, that is an action of a person.

Sounds like a scary word folks with little understanding of firearms came up with to make a simple semi automatic rifle sound "evil"

Frankly the only difference between what is viewed by uneducated folks as an "assault" rife vs what is viewed as a sensible "hunting" rifle are simply ergonomic changes like moving handles and using a pistol grip.

I have two chairs, one is a old style French wooden chair, the other one is a black office chair with lumbar support, adjustable heights and recline, would you consider the office chair an "assault" chair?

After all it makes is easy to sit for long periods of time and devise evil plans, one could also use it to sit in a build and bomb, or fire a rifle while seated, heck it could also be used to sit for longer periods of time than the wooden chair, which could be utilized for organizing people and building websites to recruit people for nefarious purposes.

We should ban these assault chairs before any more blood is shed, no American needs chairs like these!! Ban them now for...the children.

Nuclear weapons don't launch themselves, or roll out of Bombay doors autonomously, so they must not be weapons either, right? See? I can be an idiot, too.

 

[cowman]

"Freedom isn't free" isn't just a neat catchphrase to justify military action it's also an outright reality.

We have freedom of speech, some people use that to incite others into violence, to spread lies, to bully, and just generally say hateful things.

We've got freedom to fly airplanes around, albeit with lots of regulation. Some people fly recklessly and get others killed.

We have freedom to drive cars.... see previous statement about airplanes.

We have freedom to choose our education, freedom to take out loans, freedom to make purchasing decisions. Some people make terrible ones and land themselves into debt.

We have the freedom to have sex and reproduce at will... some people are careless there too with dire consequences.

Then we also have freedom to own guns.... and some people use that freedom to harm the innocent.


With all freedom comes consequence. There will always be some in our society who make bad and/or harmful choices and hurt themselves or others. We regulate many of these things to one degree or another in an attempt to figure out the line between making it possible for free citizens to be able to do things vs protecting us from ourselves ought to be. The judgements as to where those lines should be are going to vary between people- I know some on here have stated they won't fly at night in a single engine aircraft and others of us do it fairly often just as one example. It's maybe not a matter of "right" or "wrong" as it is a matter of where one's particular risk to reward comfort level lies.

Yet another angle to this is how much we value a particular freedom. Freedom to have sex with anyone anytime might not be worth much to a clergy member with a vow of chastity. Freedom to fly probably doesn't mean a lot to non-pilots... and those guys who don't like the noisy airplanes going over their house or who saw one smash into a building in their neighborhood may even be against it. It means a lot to the private pilots and the aviation industry though. For me, not being able to fly would just be sad... I'd be ok, I'd drive places and grudgingly fly commercial but a part of me would be gone. For others it would be their livelihood, their way of life... especially some of those folks in remote parts of Alaska just to name one group. It's awfully hard to get that across to someone not in the know who keeps getting his windows rattled by aircraft on approach to the local field... and he may not care. They're just rich people toys harassing the neighborhood and waking up his kids, at least in his mind.

So it is with guns. People are getting shot, a lot of innocent people. If you live in the city with police nearby at all times, no hunting, no real gun culture apart from gangs I can see why you might find it insane that anyone can have just one of those things. Then you have people like me who have lived their whole lives in a rural area, never once in their lives been worried about getting shot, and for whom guns are part of the culture. I hunt, I shoot nuisance animals that kill our livestock and tear stuff up, I target shoot, and if god forbid anything ever did happen it might take the police half an hour or more to get out here. I personally value the freedom to keep and bear arms quite a bit. I've also never had a bad experience with guns... I've never even had one pointed at me nor do I have any friends or loved ones who have had scary incidents so it's hard for me to get very excited about giving up something of value to me to protect against a problem I don't experience. We did come up with noise abatement procedures for airplanes... they don't satisfy anyone completely but they were a reasonable compromise that lets us keep our freedom to fly. If something could be done with guns that satisfied the concerns of others but let me keep my freedom to keep and bear them... I'm listening.

Freedoms have value, yes even the ones that get people killed. We have to stop and have respect for that, even if we don't like the consequences it needs to be considered that just because you don't value a thing doesn't mean there aren't others who value it a lot. We quote statistics at each other and make these arguments back and forth but much of the time this is all it really comes down to- my freedom vs your concern. We won't all agree, you can argue until you're blue in the face and it's unlikely to change anyone's mind. The only good option with these sorts of things is to talk it out, listen to each other, and look for options we can all live with(I have some ideas if anyone cares). However, more and more what we end up doing is fighting a political tug of war that results in our gun control laws- a hodgepodge of regulations that are different in each state, rarely make any kind of practical sense, and are constantly getting struck down and reinstated over the years.

 

[Cooter]

Sorry. I thought you were referring to the militia I mentioned in the post you quoted from - the one the 2nd Amendment talks about

Maybe my "original intent" is blurring my ability to understand your post.

 

[azure]

Waitaminit - you are not actually expecting the folks in an urban area where gun deaths are an everyday occurrence to understand what gun ownership means in a more rural area, are you? That's sacrilegious!

I was trying to think of how to reply, but Cowman came along and said it much better than I could have. (And I'm not even a gun owner - but I've yet to be afraid here of anyone who is.)

 

[Shawn]

My point in the initial MEME post was a first amendment issue yet most have replied with a second amendment response.

THAT is what is wrong with our country.

It is the extreme of the NRA saying "take up arms against the government"
It is the extreme of Black Live Matter "Pigs in a Blanket"
Is is the extreme on Fox News "Obama is going to take away your guns"

Unchecked that is dangerous in my view than the tool used to protect those beliefs.

 

[Cooter]

My point in the initial MEME post was a first amendment issue yet most have replied with a second amendment response.

THAT is what is wrong with our country.

It is the extreme of the NRA saying "take up arms against the government"
It is the extreme of Black Live Matter "Pigs in a Blanket"
Is is the extreme on Fox News "Obama is going to take away your guns"

Unchecked that is dangerous in my view than the tool used to protect those beliefs.

So you think limiting free-speech will curb violence? I'm not sure I'm following you here.

 

[GlennAB1]

Okay so if your child were sitting in that classroom at Sandy Hook Elementary school, would you have preferred that the attacker had burst through that front door with:

(a) An old style French wooden chair
(b) A black office chair
(c) An AR-15

Clearly he could have assaulted those children with any one of those weapons. I'm going to guess, maybe I'm wrong, that he might not have killed 20 of them before the police arrived if he had chosen (a) or (b).

Your argument is ludicrous.

You're argument is ludicrous. Noone with a heart wants an attacker to enter a school.

 

[Cooter]

My last post, if I can help it. Anyone who didn't see this coming didn't understand the issue.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/09/dallas-obama-federal-shootings/

 

[KFD]

You're argument is ludicrous. Noone with a heart wants an attacker to enter a school.

And yet we enable sick individuals to take multiple lives quickly because we allow assault weapons to be sold. So if we really don't want attacks like this happening, then we need to do something about it.

 

[James331]

No, but sort of like the Bible (hmmm, the analogy seems to be working), one can find things in the US Constitution and history to support various interpretations. I've seen "original intent" folks who claim the Constitution is immutable. It means exactly what it meant on the day it was written. Of course, that's only when it suits their political point of view. Different story when it doesn't. BTW, that is equally true for "living constitution" folks.

So yes, as soon as you say, "Mine is the only correct position. 'There is no discussion, no debate, nada.'" you are indeed proving my point.

So is the person who responds to you post with, "OK, take your musket and join the 'well regulated militia' - that's what the Constitution protects."

Let's go down that path.

First off it's not my position, it's the position of the constitution of the United States of America.

Back when the constitution was written a musket was used by the millitary as a, more or less, standard issue rifle, it was also the norm for a citizen to own one, for the same reasons as owning a rifle today, defense, hunting, plinking, or making tyrants think twice.

Nowadays, the standard issue millitary rifle is a semiautomatic center fire, with about 15-20 rounds depending on the round, we've learned to build them to be lighter and to mold to a natural human body position better, thus the AR platform, the AR (10 or 15) is basically the modern day musket.

Musket to a musket

Semi auto center fire to a semi auto center fire.

Nuclear weapons don't launch themselves, or roll out of Bombay doors autonomously, so they must not be weapons either, right? See? I can be an idiot, too.

Yes, yes you can.

Please quote where I said a rifle wasn't a weapon?


I have a 1/2 inch torque wrench, it's just a tool, but if you break into my house, you dont see me, I hit you in the temple with it, it's a deadly weapon, used to protect my home.

If a nut job stole my wrench, broke into a house, hit the homeowner in the temple with it, well now its a deadly assault weapon.

I'm 170lb man, if I put my force into it the wrench will kill you just as dead, just as quick as a .223, and it'll actually be far quieter and easier to conceal, so in someways that wrench is more dangerous than the AR no?

Or I can just use the wrench, as I do, to install some spark plugs, just as I use my rifle to shoot some paper for fun, and a deer for food, and it'll stand ready to defend my home if, god forbid, the need arises.


Don't romanticize the tool.

 

[KFD]

Let's go down that path.

First off it's not my position, it's the position of the constitution of the United States of America.

...as interpreted by you.

And, unfortunately, a huge number of other people. Maybe with time as the carnage spreads a majority of people will get a clue and things will changes. Lots of idiotic ideas that this country thought was good has changed. Slavery was abolished. Racial laws were struck down. It takes time to edumacate the ignorant.

 

[James331]

Perhaps moving to a more "enlightened" country might be in order for people whom the constitution offends?


Look.....if you're dating someone who does things you don't like, the smart move to break up, and find someone else who doesn't do those things, not try to change the personality of the person you're dating.









Also, according to the CDC, in 2013,

Killed by a firearm -> 11,000 people out of a population of 316,000,000, not really something to be too concerned with.

But, if you must be banning things, over 600,000 folks died that year due to heart disease, better ban Big Macs, and send the fatties to diet concentration camps

Who would have thought... looks like, according to math, fast food is a deadlier weapon than a rifle?

 

[Sundancer]

I read two Cowman posts in this thread. . .worth your time, if you missed/skipped them.

I'm less thoughtful, less articulate. . .five people were murdered, a dozen more wounded. A depraved act, by a twisted mind - as if slaughtering strangers, selected only by race, "balanced" some injustices whose particulars it is unlikey he even knew.

He woke up, dressed, armed himself, and went out intendng to kill humans. White ones, specifically, and cops, more specifically. There may have been a cop somewhere in America that day, with the same mind set; can't know for certain, of course, but it doesn't appear to be the case.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Maybe my "original intent" is blurring my ability to understand your post.

Could be since "original intent" is a purely political creation.

 

[JOhnH]

Gun violence in America. Who would have thought of that?

Condolences to the families of the fallen.

So, you think guns caused this?

 

[silver-eagle]

Soldiers used shotguns during the Vietnam war. Probably still do. Are those assault weapons? Soldiers use 45 call handguns. Does that make them assault weapons? In fact, that major who shot up the Army base used a 45, if I recall.
Just because our soldiers use a particular style weapon, does not make it an assault weapon.
More laws don't help. More restrictive background checks won't help. Better mental health care might. Better training and screening for our first responders might help.
Not everything has a fix; quick or otherwise.

 

[KFD]

Perhaps moving to a more "enlightened" country might be in order for people whom the constitution offends?

No thanks. I like it here. Things will eventually change. We're going to elect our first female President after our first African American President. Who would have ever thought that was possible? We will eventually outnumber you. If you don't like that, please go ahead and move to another country. I'm just glad I got in before Trump builds his wall (there, I covered all bases I predicted one of them will be prez )

 

[Cooter]

Would you care to offer your thoughts instead of empty snark? Why don't you quit trying to appear above the discussion and actually offer something of substance.

So yes, as soon as you say, "Mine is the only correct position. 'There is no discussion, no debate, nada.'" you are indeed proving my point.

Sorry. I thought you were referring to the militia I mentioned in the post you quoted from - the one the 2nd Amendment talks about

Could be since "original intent" is a purely political creation.

So, is there more than one way to interpret the constitution or are you playing the same game you derisively accuse others of? You make the point that anyone who takes a solid stance on interpreting the constitution is a rube. But, then you put your nose up in the air when someone happens to view it different than you. I enjoy good discussion, but the hypocrisy here robs the conversation of its value.

The answer to the question in the title is simple. We have become a polarized country (world actually) in which the only views are extreme, uncompromising ones. Anyone who does not agree with us is an enemy. No room for discussion, no room for compromise. I'm 100% right and you are 100% wrong.

Can you find agreement with a "original intenter", or are you 100% right?

 

[KFD]

So, you think guns caused this?

No, flowers did. Definitely flowers.

 

[James331]

No thanks. I like it here. Things will eventually change. We're going to elect our first female President after our first African American President. Who would have ever thought that was possible? We will eventually outnumber you. If you don't like that, please go ahead and move to another country. I'm just glad I got in before Trump builds his wall (there, I covered all bases I predicted one of them will be prez )

So you elected Obama because he's black, and are going to vote for Hillary becuse she has a vagina?

How enlightened.


I frankly don't give a crap about the color, sex, or personal life of a POTUS/person, I care about how they are going to do the job.




As long as this country is the United States, she'll have her constitution.

And there will be plenty of folks, like me, who just want to live our lives, live and let live, we will defend our constitutional rights, using our rights granted under the second amendment, if so required. I don't think it's my place to tell you what rights you should, or shouldn't exercise, it's not my right, nor my desire, I just ask you show me the same respect.

Too bad we can't get a libertarian in office.

 

[KFD]

So you elected Obama because he's black, and are going to vote for Hillary becuse she has a vagina?

...because to some people (I won't name them), that is the only reason why they got elected.

And as long as this country is the United States, she'll have her constitution.

Yes. You seem to be having trouble understanding the concept that it can be interpreted in different ways. Like I said and others expanded on, these issues are like a religion and the constitution is the bible. There are many ways to interpret the intent.

 

[James331]

Why did you mention those two by color and sex, instead of mentioning them by name or accomplishment?


As far as interpreting, there are only so many way that the right to bear arms can be interpreted, is it a firearm? Not many ways to look at that one.


Besides, if "gun control", banning "assault" rifles and 10+ round mags works, how was the San Berdino (California) shooting possible?

 

[Cooter]

Yes. You seem to be having trouble understanding the concept that it can be interpreted in different ways. Like I said and others expanded on, these issues are like a religion and the constitution is the bible. There are many ways to interpret the intent.

Aren't you having the same trouble?

 

[KFD]

Why did you mention those two by color and sex, instead of mentioning them by name or accomplishment?

Didn't realize you were such big fans of them. Good for you. I think Obama is by far one of the smartest Presidents we've ever had (Bill Clinton not far behind). Can't say I'm a fan of Hillary but she will get my vote over the other idiot. Not a great reason to vote for someone but c'est la vie.

As for the gun religion thing... Good night I know you will never understand and I sure as heck will never understand your point of view. So I'm going to bow out now and get ready to watch that UFC fight.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

I'm a farm boy, I have no problem with weapons. But the argument that an AR15 with a bump stock and 100 round magazine and a shotgun have the same lethal potential simply isn't credible.


Maybe it might be better to define assault weapon, rather than using terms like "semi-automatic"and "detachable clip", as weapon that, as one that in the hands of a trained marksman, can kill more than X number of people in a defined area in a defined time period, say 15 seconds.

 

[James331]

Bump stock?

100 round MAG? Does that have wheels on the bottom lol

A 30 rounder is about 8", so you're talking a 2 foot long mag.


Side note.

This

Fires the same round, just as fast, and can reload just as fast, as this.

Basically the exact same rifle, both are 7.62mm semi auto, extrenal mag fed rifles, both fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. Just one is black and is more ergonomic, the other is wood and pretty.

To folks uneducated on firearms, one is a millitary weapon which has no use outside of a battle field, and the other is your grandpas pretty hunting rifle.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

Bump stock?

100 round MAG? Does that have wheels on the bottom lol

A 30 rounder is about 8", so you're talking a 2 foot long mag.

It's round. There are a bunch of videos on YouTube, look for yourself.

 

[Mike Smith]

I'm a farm boy, I have no problem with weapons. But the argument that an AR15 with a bump stock and 100 round magazine and a shotgun have the same lethal potential simply isn't credible.


Maybe it might be better to define assault weapon, rather than using terms like "semi-automatic"and "detachable clip", as weapon that, as one that in the hands of a trained marksman, can kill more than X number of people in a defined area in a defined time period, say 15 seconds.

Chip, I carry a Smith & Wesson M&P Shield 9mm. It is a semi automatic handgun, single stack magazine with a capacity of 9. The magazine is detachable. I can fire it 25 times in 15-20 seconds. Is it an assault weapon?

 

[James331]

It's round. There are a bunch of videos on YouTube, look for yourself.

Oh

What a horrible stock.
That doesn't make a AR more deadly, it just makes it cheap.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

Oh

What a horrible stock.
That doesn't make a AR more deadly, it just makes it cheap.

No, it enables the shooter to use the recoil of the weapon to fire 100 rounds in under 60 seconds, as fast as it would were it set on automatic. That makes it more deadly.

Mike, I don't know. How accurate are ya?
Seriously, that's a decision that would have to be determined by input from the military, law enforcement and politicians. I'm simply suggesting that the definition be operational rather than descriptive, as it is now.

 

[Tom-D]

True...and I am not at all anti gun however do believe a balance is warranted, but I have a few "acquaintances" that are hard core 2nd amendment unrestricted gun ownership types...borderline Preppers and this is a common theme among their arguments, almost Anti-Government us against them.

The point being regardless of what you believe, project that fear into society enough unchecked and someone is bound to latch on.

Shawn I must ask, what kind of government needs their electorate disarmed?

 

[Mike Smith]

No, it enables the shooter to use the recoil of the weapon to fire 100 rounds in under 60 seconds, as fast as it would were it set on automatic. That makes it more deadly.

Mike, I don't know. How accurate are ya?
Seriously, that's a decision that would have to be determined by input from the military, law enforcement and politicians. I'm simply suggesting that the definition be operational rather than descriptive, as it is now.

Chip, I respect you because you will engage in thoughtful discussion. I disagree, but I respect. I would simply ask this. You say let military, LE and politicians decide?? Really? I mean, you may really think that is best, but boy howdy, I sure don't.

 

[James331]

No, it enables the shooter to use the recoil of the weapon to fire 100 rounds in under 60 seconds, as fast as it would were it set on automatic. That makes it more deadly.

Mike, I don't know. How accurate are ya?
Seriously, that's a decision that would have to be determined by input from the military, law enforcement and politicians. I'm simply suggesting that the definition be operational rather than descriptive, as it is now.

Oh, bump shooting lol!

That used to be fun as a kid, we'd do it with my buddies AK47, could also do it with most any semi auto, frankly aside from blowing lots of ammo it doesn't have much real world use.

If I were going to get in shootout, and the other guy could only bump fire his weapon, I'd happily go up against a AR15 with a 100round drum, with my 7 round 1894, I'd also feel sorry for him, as he'd be channeling his inner tony montaina, making lots of noise but not hitting much, I'd just slowly chamber a round, aim and squeeze.


Bump firing, ahh back when I was young and 7.62 was cheap enough to waste like that.

 

[Tom-D]

I though this was a conversation about the "Why" things are happening...not gun control.

I was hoping it would stay about "why this stuff was happening" But ? it seems it never does here.

 

[Shawn]

Shawn I must ask, what kind of government needs their electorate disarmed?

None...and I believe in an armed electorate and individual gun ownership. I do not however believe that as a basis and reason for that gun ownership we need those arms as protection FROM the government as a some can preach. The danger lies not in gun ownership among the population, but in that the notion that Government is the enemy mentality which can lead to the fear and ultimate rationale for an individual to perform an event like Dallas.

Now not only are those notions not debunked or put in check by rational people when expressed, they are fostered and encouraged unchecked in today's social media and sensationalism media society with impunity.

 

[Cooter]

I do not however believe that as a basis and reason for gun ownership we need those arms as protection FROM the government

Were the Founders wrong to mistrust the government?

....Government is the enemy mentality......

Can governments ever be the enemy? And if so, could ours ever be the enemy?

 

[Chip Sylverne]

Chip, I respect you because you will engage in thoughtful discussion. I disagree, but I respect. I would simply ask this. You say let military, LE and politicians decide?? Really? I mean, you may really think that is best, but boy howdy, I sure don't.

Who else to best define an "assault weapon" than those who are experts? Wouldn't the military or LE qualify in your opinion?

Given the choice of no regulation, regulation promulgated by those who know nothing of the subject but are controlled by moneyed interests, or regulations proposed by experts in the subject, give me door number 3 every time. And of course, being a republic, politicians are involved by necessity if anything is ever to become law.

Such regulation might not include a ban, but more difficult or stringent requirements to purchase such weapons.

I appreciate your comments.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

Oh, bump shooting lol!

That used to be fun as a kid, we'd do it with my buddies AK47, could also do it with most any semi auto, frankly aside from blowing lots of ammo it doesn't have much real world use.

If I were going to get in shootout, and the other guy could only bump fire his weapon, I'd happily go up against a AR15 with a 100round drum, with my 7 round 1894, I'd also feel sorry for him, as he'd be channeling his inner tony montaina, making lots of noise but not hitting much, I'd just slowly chamber a round, aim and squeeze.


Bump firing, ahh back when I was young and 7.62 was cheap enough to waste like that.

Bump firing is not the same as using a bump fire stock. Your're not firing from the hip. With a little practice, you can be pretty darn accurate. Which makes it a very lethal weapon, much more so than the afore mentioned 12ga.
Or your Winchester.