It won’t End with “ARs.”

[TurtleDude]

True. Perhaps once we get ARs off the street we can start on handguns and those clips.

How you going to do that-try to confiscate them? you plan on doing that yourself?

 

[Fearandloathing]

If banning ARs prevents even only one single school shooting, it would be well worth it.
Most people on the left, at least the ones I talk to, realize banning assault rifles would not stop mass killings. However, isn't it easier to kill a lot of people with a big gun than with a smaller gun ? Out of the 4 deadliest mass shootings, 3 where done using an Assault Rifle (Sandy Hook, Vegas, Pulse Night Club). Isn't it easier for police forces to arrest someone using a pistol ? (Less suppressive fire, less rounds, authorities are more heavily armed). I've personally shot both, much harder to be accurate with a handgun.

I'm really 50/50 on this issue. On one hand I believe the action of a few should not outweigh the liberties of the many. On the other hand, fully automatic machine guns have no practical purpose other than leisure (in my opinion). I would gladly sacrifice one of my hobbies if doing so could limit the number of dead.

Also, the problem is that the term "AR" is used in a very loose way. I have a problem with fully automatic weapons. Now, I know what you're going to say : "well you can make your own bump stock, so banning automatic weapons would be pointless!" to which I will answer this : You can make a bomb with a pressure cooker, some salad oil, ground up rubber tires and toilet paper. Does this mean we should sell bombs ready to go since "you can make your own if you want to anyway" ?

Thank you.

I will count you among the rarity of "sane American".

And thank you for putting this debate back in persepective...it's about at least TRYING to find a way to stop the slaughter of children?

No, the right won't even tolerate a look, just keep letting it happen and....well you see it here. Rather than a rational conversation about being the only nation on the face of the earth with a slaughtering school kids problem and how NOT to be, like here they turn it into a hate fest of "the left".

But seriously people. How the **** do you sleep at night after seeing the bloodshed of children in what SHOULD be the safest place outside of the home? You just cannot see how insane that is.

And, I'm tired of the second amendment argument, you have NEVER lived up to what it says...."A WELL REGULATED..

If you would better "regulate" your children would be alive.

 

[Harshaw]

seems leftwing libertarians aren't all that big on freedom.

Yeah, I've noticed that most, though not all, who call themselves "Libertarian-Left" are as hostile to the first word as they are enamored with the second.

 

[TurtleDude]

Right now stripped lower AR 15 receivers can be had for less than 50 bucks. This is the one part you have to fill out a 4473 to buy. I know at least two dozen people who each have bought dozens of these things and stashed them away. With one in your possession, you can build just about any configured AR 15 you want based on parts you can readily buy through the mail or on line. Additionally, companies are marketing 80% receivers which don't need a background check to buy and can be legally finished into a working lower receiver with common tools such as a drill press. 3D printers are rapidly approaching the ability to make durable fully functioning lower receivers. Since the government cannot track those nor do they track all the parts other than the lower receivers, many patriots are quietly laying in supplies in case the bannerrhoid politicians manage to stop the sale of AR 15s.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yeah, I've noticed that most, though not all, who call themselves "Libertarian-Left" are as hostile to the first word as they are enamored with the second.

Its a pretense that they favor freedom when they really are nothing more than statist-collectivists. They claim that they object to the "power" of corporations but they try to counter that with government control over private property.

Its like many of them complain about too much wealth being in the hands of several million wealthy families so their solution is concentrating more and more wealth into the hands of a couple thousand politicians and their bureaucratic minions

 

[Vadinho]

You don't have to wait. It's currently illegal for any felon to possess a firearm including handguns. Pick the closest high crime neighborhood and start going door to door, demanding that any felon with a gun turn it over to you.

Or were you planning on someone else doing the dirty work?

Not exactly sure how it would work, likely best to go to the source and heavily regulate the gun and ammunition industries first. We are a long ways away from what will eventually be the solution if we can avoid a civil war over guns. Maybe our nature is so violent that we cannot think of being alive without a gun. It sure seems like some folks think happiness is a warm gun.

 

[PLizzy]

My definition of an "oppressive government" isn't a difficult one. There are oppressive governments all over the world if you want examples, ones where, if they ever had it, "democracy" has become inoperative.

So you don't actually have a definition you can lay out verbally, just comparing our free government to some regime? That's what I thought.

To think that you can sue your way out of an oppressive regime is hilarious.

That you think you're going to take on a regime with some AR's is pure fantasy.

No, I'm talking about freedom. I'm also talking about the difference in problems between too much freedom and too little of it. I didn't say anything about "anarchy."

Bull****.

You can keep using the word 'freedom' like it's some sort of magic wand that makes your foolishness rational, but it's not going to work. What you advocate is completely irrational, gives people the idea they have a right to total lawlessness, and is just pure fantasy.

That you find the idea of the problems of too much freedom to be some kind of scary prospect as against too little freedom is most telling.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I never said there's too much freedom, those are your words.

I never even said people shouldn't have the right to firearms. What I said was this idea that the 2A gives people the "right" to violently resist government rule is completely irrational, and wouldn't work anyways. It's pure fantasy based on the idea that what was true in the eighteenth century is still true now -- it isn't.

It's especially interesting considering you call yourself a "libertarian." "Libertarian-Left" could mean two things -- that you're generally a American-style libertarian who leans left on a few things, or it could mean the Euro-style anarcho-socialist "libertarian." For the former, minarchy would be the rule; for the later, anarchy. Considering you find both of those concepts to give you the willies, I can only conclude that you do not really hold that lean.

Ah, another winger that thinks they get to determine what other people believe for them. While I'd love nothing more than to show you how idiotic you are, I'm not going to let you distract and derail from the discussion you're losing.

Throwing around the words 'freedom', 'tyranny' and 'oppression' like they are magic doesn't convince anybody of anything, it just makes you look like a lawless individual hiding behind the flag.

 

[Rucker61]

Not exactly sure how it would work, likely best to go to the source and heavily regulate the gun and ammunition industries first. We are a long ways away from what will eventually be the solution if we can avoid a civil war over guns. Maybe our nature is so violent that we cannot think of being alive without a gun. It sure seems like some folks think happiness is a warm gun.

Regulate all you wish, as long as the new laws on Constitutional, effective, enforceable and would be enforced. We don't enforce the laws we have against actual felons now.

 

[TurtleDude]

Regulate all you wish, as long as the new laws on Constitutional, effective, enforceable and would be enforced. We don't enforce the laws we have against actual felons now.

gun control and gun control advocates have nothing to do with controlling criminals

 

[Casper]

gun control and gun control advocates have nothing to do with controlling criminals

and never have..................

 

[minnie616]

Simply is not true.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm

https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Weapons-in-high-profile-mass-shootings-4227888.php

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

Those stats are 4 or more killed.

I consider large numbers killed to be more than several.

There have been 23 massive shootings killing 10 or more people in the US since 2007.

 

[Rucker61]

Those stats are 4 or more killed.

I consider large numbers killed to be more than several.

There have been 23 massive shootings killing 10 or more people in the US since 2007.

Mother Jones only has 17. Period.

I don't know what you think either number means, legally. You do intend to change the law legally, right?

What do you want the new law to say?

 

[Harshaw]

So you don't actually have a definition you can lay out verbally, just comparing our free government to some regime? That's what I thought.


That you think you're going to take on a regime with some AR's is pure fantasy.


Bull****.

You can keep using the word 'freedom' like it's some sort of magic wand that makes your foolishness rational, but it's not going to work. What you advocate is completely irrational, gives people the idea they have a right to total lawlessness, and is just pure fantasy.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I never said there's too much freedom, those are your words.

I never even said people shouldn't have the right to firearms. What I said was this idea that the 2A gives people the "right" to violently resist government rule is completely irrational, and wouldn't work anyways. It's pure fantasy based on the idea that what was true in the eighteenth century is still true now -- it isn't.


Ah, another winger that thinks they get to determine what other people believe for them. While I'd love nothing more than to show you how idiotic you are, I'm not going to let you distract and derail from the discussion you're losing.

Throwing around the words 'freedom', 'tyranny' and 'oppression' like they are magic doesn't convince anybody of anything, it just makes you look like a lawless individual hiding behind the flag.

Your problem here, and what you're confusing yourself with, is the thorny briar patch of assumptions you dragged into this exchange. This post is mostly nonsensical.

 

[Harshaw]

Those stats are 4 or more killed.

I consider large numbers killed to be more than several.

There have been 23 massive shootings killing 10 or more people in the US since 2007.

Look closer. Look at the weapons used for whatever number threshold you want.

 

[minnie616]

Mother Jones only has 17. Period.

The article I posted listing all 23 of them but I mistaken the years of the shootings were since 1989 so you are probably correct in your number 17 shootings since 2007.

17 shootings in a public place with 10 more people dead ....that is far too many.

The people who commit these types of carnage want to shoot and as many victims as they can in a matter of minutes.

 

[Casper]

Not exactly sure how it would work, likely best to go to the source and heavily regulate the gun and ammunition industries first. We are a long ways away from what will eventually be the solution if we can avoid a civil war over guns. Maybe our nature is so violent that we cannot think of being alive without a gun. It sure seems like some folks think happiness is a warm gun.

Sometimes having a gun means you Remain Alive, life is full of choices, I am good with others making their choices so long as they do not try taking away mine.

 

[blackjack50]

So good to know there are still some sane people down there.

Look. IF the morons in the Democratic Party that want to ban firearms...they need to repeal the 2nd. But they can’t. Then you have idiots who propose waste of time feel good legislation to fool the gullible. And part of their justification is to pretend the 2nd is cryptically worded to fool the gullible as welll. Like trying to emphasize the “militia” part of the amendnement. Even though the right is CLEARLY given to “the people.” And it is not contingent upon a militia. The militia being a subset of “the people” and the founders recognizing that the “militia” is recruits from “the people.”

These idiotic “assault weapons” bans that either raise the age to 21 for possessing ALL long arms AND handguns (unconstitutional given that you are a citizen at 18). Or they ban a few guns and ignore that shootings HAVE happened with handguns and shotguns and other non “assault” weapons. It is a never ending stream of stupid bull**** because the left wants to PRETEND they are solving the problem because they are too big of ******s to address the real issue. And of course it runs contrary to a major party value. “The government will protect you.” The government doesn’t protect the citizens. It is more nanny state stupidity. And before you or anyone else decides to reply “what about (insert republicans not doing something statement here),” this isn’t about the republicans trying to cram stupid gun control legislation down our throats.

If we want something done to solve our problems? We need to address our defective mental health care coverage and our approach to due process and dealing with someone who is reported 43 times to law enforcement. If you honestly believe gun control is the solution...then you were paying attention to the case facts. If I wanted to go bomb a school...you could report me all day long. It was clear from this last incident that the government has no interest in actuslly STOPPING anything. Not until multiple people had been killed.

 

[TurtleDude]

Look. IF the morons in the Democratic Party that want to ban firearms...they need to repeal the 2nd. But they can’t. Then you have idiots who propose waste of time feel good legislation to fool the gullible. And part of their justification is to pretend the 2nd is cryptically worded to fool the gullible as welll. Like trying to emphasize the “militia” part of the amendnement. Even though the right is CLEARLY given to “the people.” And it is not contingent upon a militia. The militia being a subset of “the people” and the founders recognizing that the “militia” is recruits from “the people.”

These idiotic “assault weapons” bans that either raise the age to 21 for possessing ALL long arms AND handguns (unconstitutional given that you are a citizen at 18). Or they ban a few guns and ignore that shootings HAVE happened with handguns and shotguns and other non “assault” weapons. It is a never ending stream of stupid bull**** because the left wants to PRETEND they are solving the problem because they are too big of ******s to address the real issue. And of course it runs contrary to a major party value. “The government will protect you.” The government doesn’t protect the citizens. It is more nanny state stupidity. And before you or anyone else decides to reply “what about (insert republicans not doing something statement here),” this isn’t about the republicans trying to cram stupid gun control legislation down our throats.

If we want something done to solve our problems? We need to address our defective mental health care coverage and our approach to due process and dealing with someone who is reported 43 times to law enforcement. If you honestly believe gun control is the solution...then you were paying attention to the case facts. If I wanted to go bomb a school...you could report me all day long. It was clear from this last incident that the government has no interest in actuslly STOPPING anything. Not until multiple people had been killed.

banFan politicians realize they would get destroyed in the polls in most states if they actually were honest and moved to repeal the second amendment. That of course is the only honest way for them to ban common rifles -along with adding an amendment that PROPERLY gave the federal government the ability to do that because we will have states passing constitutional provisions saying rifles made and owned within a sovereign state did not move in interstate commerce and that would force a constitutional crisis (as it should)

 

[Vadinho]

Regulate all you wish, as long as the new laws on Constitutional, effective, enforceable and would be enforced. We don't enforce the laws we have against actual felons now.

What you fail to see is the long trajectory of the 2nd amendment. It's survival as we know it can go in one of two ways; more guns, less regulation, more deaths, more carnage, or less guns, more regulation, less carnage and ultimately repealing it or changing Heller. I can tell you that the first trajectory just hit a major roadblock in Parkland. The second path is where we are headed, you may have to learn Jeet Koon Do to protect yourself.

 

[Rucker61]

What you fail to see is the long trajectory of the 2nd amendment. It's survival as we know it can go in one of two ways; more guns, less regulation, more deaths, more carnage, or less guns, more regulation, less carnage and ultimately repealing it or changing Heller. I can tell you that the first trajectory just hit a major roadblock in Parkland. The second path is where we are headed, you may have to learn Jeet Koon Do to protect yourself.

Changing Heller isn't that simple, especially given the subsequent McDonald and Caetano decisions in support. SCOTUS is just going to get more conservative. The problem is the short attention span and innumeracy of the general population, and willingness of the MSM to adopt any bias in favor of clicks on a webpage.

 

[Vadinho]

Changing Heller isn't that simple, especially given the subsequent McDonald and Caetano decisions in support. SCOTUS is just going to get more conservative. The problem is the short attention span and innumeracy of the general population, and willingness of the MSM to adopt any bias in favor of clicks on a webpage.

Agreed but if Scalia can make up Heller, a new court can make up another decision just as easily. All it takes is popular resentment and disgust to sway the courts sooner or later, they will respond in kind.

 

[TurtleDude]

What you fail to see is the long trajectory of the 2nd amendment. It's survival as we know it can go in one of two ways; more guns, less regulation, more deaths, more carnage, or less guns, more regulation, less carnage and ultimately repealing it or changing Heller. I can tell you that the first trajectory just hit a major roadblock in Parkland. The second path is where we are headed, you may have to learn Jeet Koon Do to protect yourself.

I reject your claims. you all cannot escape your desire to harass honest gun owners and you lie and claim that will decrease crime. WRONG. what decreases crime is incapacitating criminals with prison sentences or them being shot. as long as you pretend lawful gun owners are your enemies, you wont do squat about crime

 

[Rucker61]

Agreed but if Scalia can make up Heller, a new court can make up another decision just as easily. All it takes is popular resentment and disgust to sway the courts sooner or later, they will respond in kind.

I don't think that "popular resentment" has any impact on SCOTUS decisions; that's the whole point of the lifetime appointment. Remember, Caetano was an 9-0 decision in favor of gun rights. Also, see stare decisis.

 

[TurtleDude]

Agreed but if Scalia can make up Heller, a new court can make up another decision just as easily. All it takes is popular resentment and disgust to sway the courts sooner or later, they will respond in kind.

like it or not-the leftist perversions of the second amendment have run their course and the scholarship is all against the nonsense the FDR scumbags tried to foist on us

 

[Rucker61]

Agreed but if Scalia can make up Heller,...

Have read Heller in detail?