[W: #105] [#181] Ten killed in shooting near LA after Lunar New Year event

[EMNofSeattle]

Judges are supposed to do what you complain about. “Judge” is to “form an opinion by carefully weighing evidence,” according to Webster.

Judges are supposed to be inferior to the legislature in our constitutional system. Their only job is to weight the law as passed by legislative authorities. If legislatures set a sentencing range a judge must follow that.

 

[Nickyjo]

Judges are supposed to be inferior to the legislature in our constitutional system. Their only job is to weight the law as passed by legislative authorities. If legislatures set a sentencing range a judge must follow that.

Key word is “range.”

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Key word is “range.”

Yeah, ranges have a minimum.

 

[Nickyjo]

Yeah, ranges have a minimum.

Fine, judges can judge.

 

[Ahlevah]

Fine, judges can judge.

Right. The NFL has line judges. They judge whether a receiver is inbounds and in possession of the ball when he catches a pass. They don’t set the rules for what constitutes a complete pass.

Neither did the "stateless Palestinian" suspect on a train bound for Hamburg make the "mass stabbing" category.

Knife rampage on German train leaves two dead and seven people injured

The bloodbath came to an end when the suspect, a 33-year-old stateless Palestinian man according to officials, was tackled by cops and arrested on a station platform in the town of Brokstedt

www.dailymail.co.uk

So yesterday we had the “stateless Palestinian” stabbing people on a train in Germany, and this morning we get to hear about the Moroccan who apparently slashed clergymen with a machete in Spain. Of course, I doubt these attacks will convince liberals the problem isn’t with the weapons. They’re doing what they’re supposed to do.

At least one dead, several injured in machete attack at southern Spain churches

Spanish authorities said they were investigating what they called a possible "terrorist" incident after a machete-wielding man attacked several people at two churches in the southern port city of Algeciras, killing at least one person.

www.reuters.com

 

[Infinite Chaos]

But hey...you 'tried'.

A whole lot more than you. Never mind, there are others I will debate this subject with.

So guns are up but crime is down, so let’s ban guns!

Don't know how you got that from what I said? Never mind, there are others I will debate this subject with.

 

[Ahlevah]

Don't know how you got that from what I said? Never mind, there are others I will debate this subject with.

You said crime is down, right? The rest I inferred based on fact and liberal logic,

 

[Uncensored2008]

I also am against letting liberals nibble at the Constitution. However, we seemed to do OK with Tommy Guns being regulated.

Nonsense. The violence of the 1920's ended when prohibition was repealed. Nothing else had any impact on it.

With an extended magazine and a Hellfire Switch, an AR15 is every bit as much a submachine gun, and more powerful.

Totally false.

First off, an AR15 chambers a .223 round - a glorified .22 - The Thompson M1A1 fired either a 10MM round, or a .45 ACP. Vastly more "powerful" than the .223 - but with far more kick, making it extremely hard to control in fully automatic mode.


Secondly, bumpstocks are not very practical as the recoil they rely on guarantees that accuracy is lost.

I could do without Hellfire and 100 shot mags, if liberals would abolish Schumer and Pelosi et al as political figures.

Please show me a 100 round magazine ever produced for an AR15?

Even if some sort of drum were built, it would make the rifle too heavy to use.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why not?

The fascists left is waging civil war against all civil rights. The 2nd is critical to preserve the rest.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Mass shootings are almost always the killing of random people.

Sorry I've been busy but I can reply your comments here. Almost always yes - however there is often a situational / locational trigger. We have kids who go back to a school they hated and try to burn it down - in the USA, some of those kids go a step further and go into a hated school and shoot whoever they can. They don't know the victims but the location has been the trigger.
Those who go into religious places / nightclubs have a self-perceived grievance about the people who attend that location. So you'll get people going and shooting black churches / synagogues / LGBQT+ clubs etc etc. They don't know the victims but the location has triggered them.

I do think you have to have something mentally wrong with you to want to kill a bunch of people. You don't? Which mass shooters do you think don't/didn't have mental issues?

I'd agree the comment about something being wrong with you - something has to have flipped in your brain however it's not always a long term issue. It's more about the freedom to act out a killing impulse as we have lots of people everywhere around the world who have mental health issues. They don't all go shooting others though.

I also have some students who have grown up in families where hunting is normal thing for a kid to learn. They are trained to use a weapon safely and shoot an animal correctly.

Goes back to my comment about training. If you visit Switzerland, you'll commonly see people carrying weapons in the street but they are off to training, there is a cultural approach to guns that means people learn to use guns safely which I don't see in those who go out and end up using guns on humans (including themselves)

Where have I said "more guns will solve gun violence"? Please quote it.

I wasn't accusing you. It's my reaction to whenever there's been a mass shooting in the USA. I read responses like "more guns in the right hands will solve the problem" or the facetious "less crime so let's ban guns - haha!" kind of comment.
There's never a really serious approach to solving the core problem which is the high numbers of people using guns how they shouldn't be.

It's not the number of weapons. It's the people who can get to those weapons.

We're on the same page here. There are plenty of other societies which allow gun ownership - Serbia for one is awash with guns but they don't have the same mass shooter problem. Their gun violence charts has steadily dropped since the wars that broke Yugoslavia into small pieces.
There's also drugs and gangs but the incidence of gun violence is a proportion of Americas. That is what I don't understand about US culture. It's not about the black population or the white population, it's not about how many guns there are - it's who can get to this guns but I also think there's a cultural thing about Americans and guns that just sets you aside from all other developed nations.

 

[mrjurrs]

The fascists left is waging civil war against all civil rights. The 2nd is critical to preserve the rest.

Keyboard commando huh?
Why do you believe that?

 

[Ahlevah]

Goes back to my comment about training. If you visit Switzerland, you'll commonly see people carrying weapons in the street but they are off to training, there is a cultural approach to guns that means people learn to use guns safely which I don't see in those who go out and end up using guns on humans (including themselves)

Yeah, people generally don’t attend a gun safety class in order to learn how to commit mass murder or suicide safely.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Keyboard commando huh?

Non-sequitur fallacy, huh?

Why do you believe that?

The proposal to add a poll tax to the exercise a constitutional right is a deliberate attempt to deny that right to those of lesser means. Essentially, what you want makes the lower socio-economic strata defenseless.

When the left comes to strip the people of civil rights, the answer must universally be "no."

 

[Infinite Chaos]

You said crime is down, right? The rest I inferred based on fact and liberal logic,

Yeah, people generally don’t attend a gun safety class in order to learn how to commit mass murder or suicide safely.

Just remember not to expect any reply from me. Quote away as much as you wish, I'm done with posters like you.

 

[Ahlevah]

Keyboard commando huh?
Why do you believe that?

Perhaps because it’s true?

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”

Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristrocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?”

Patrick Henry, Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1788

“The ultimate authority...resides in the people alone...The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.”

James Madison

“Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”

Patrick Henry

 

[Ahlevah]

Just remember not to expect any reply from me. Quote away as much as you wish, I'm done with posters like you.

Sorry, I wasn’t trying to hurt your feelings. I just couldn’t pass up the opportunity to point out the absurdity of your statement.

 

[mrjurrs]

Non-sequitur fallacy, huh?



The proposal to add a poll tax to the exercise a constitutional right is a deliberate attempt to deny that right to those of lesser means. Essentially, what you want makes the lower socio-economic strata defenseless.

When the left comes to strip the people of civil rights, the answer must universally be "no."

You consider the insurance charge to be a poll tax? Fine. .22 single shot long guns will be exempt.

 

[VanceMack]

A whole lot more than you. Never mind, there are others I will debate this subject with.



Don't know how you got that from what I said? Never mind, there are others I will debate this subject with.

Yeah? What exactly are you debating in tis thread? The people shot? the Asian guy that killed them? Or is it just another idiotic anti-gun thread?

 

[mrjurrs]

Perhaps because it’s true?

Longing for the past? The time where citizen militia's could overthrow the government by force of arms is long past.

 

[RF667799]

You consider the insurance charge to be a poll tax? Fine. .22 single shot long guns will be exempt.

Explain your reasoning, because there's a lack of humorous posts in this forum.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You consider the insurance charge to be a poll tax?

That's exactly what it is. Yet another scheme by democrats to deny civil rights to those of lesser means

Fine. .22 single shot long guns will be exempt.

No - you may not revoke civil rights.

 

[mrjurrs]

That's exactly what it is. Yet another scheme by democrats to deny civil rights to those of lesser means



No - you may not revoke civil rights.

There is no requirement to buy insurance if you buy a particular gun, ergo, no tax to exercise your right. Liability coverage would help the rest of America exercise their unalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Dobbs v Jackson

Don't get caught up in the idea that your 2nd Amendment rights are inviolate. They are limited. A future SCOTUS could limit them much more.

 

[coyote505]

Nonsense. The violence of the 1920's ended when prohibition was repealed. Nothing else had any impact on it.


Reply:
Granted. Like most gun bans, Tommy Gun regs likely had little effect on crime. I'm just saying that they did not result in the sky falling.



Totally false.

First off, an AR15 chambers a .223 round - a glorified .22 - The Thompson M1A1 fired either a 10MM round, or a .45 ACP. Vastly more "powerful" than the .223 - but with far more kick, making it extremely hard to control in fully automatic mode.

Secondly, bumpstocks are not very practical as the recoil they rely on guarantees that accuracy is lost.


Reply:

Typical muzle energy figures:
.22 long rifle hi-speed: 140 ft.lbs.
.45 : 350 ft.lbs.
.223 : 1200 ft.lbs.

A Hellfire switch is not a bump stock. It works on the trigger.





Please show me a 100 round magazine ever produced for an AR15?

Even if some sort of drum were built, it would make the rifle too heavy to use.

Reply:
I agree that a 100 shot clip on a rifle would ordinarily be impractical, therefore no loss if banned. This does not mean that there aren't some real Frankenstein gadgets out there, which would have NO use on a defensive weapon, and would only conceivably be of use for the mass shooting of unarmed people. They may not even be of much use for that, as they seem to jam frequently, according to news reports. However, they give Liberals, and even some middle of the road people, nightmares. I am advocating that we, as gun owners making the point for the legitimate use of guns, would be better off if such ridiculous devices receded from the market.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Longing for the past? The time where citizen militia's could overthrow the government by force of arms is long past.
View attachment 67434185

And you'll defeat him with your pronouns?

 

[Uncensored2008]

There is no requirement to buy insurance if you buy a particular gun, ergo, no tax to exercise your right.

Ah, so the Jim Crow 2.0 idea that there is no actual poll tax, if you vote for the democrat

Liability coverage would help the rest of America exercise their unalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Can you point to these in the Constitution?

And denial of liberty doesn't help anyone exercise the right to liberty.

Dobbs v Jackson

Roe v Wade.

Now that we have cited cases irrelevant to the subject, let us return to the actual topic.

Don't get caught up in the idea that your 2nd Amendment rights are inviolate. They are limited. A future SCOTUS could limit them much more.

The democrat party seeks to end civil rights - the 1st has been under constant attack fore the last two years. But the only way to change a constitutional protection of rights is to ratify an amendment.

As the fascist left has become more aggressive in the war to end individual liberty - it has galvanized decent Americans against the war to end liberty.

The last couple of years as democrats have waged civil war have not been what anyone could call a "success" for the left who seeks to end the Bill of Rights. Loss of the SCOTUS by the Reich has really put a damper on the agenda to crush all civil liberty.