Bump stocks for guns

[pzl2lxie81mc]

Also, Scalia, a noted supporter of the second amendment, drew the line at military-grade weapons and stated specifically that the second amendment does not extend to ordinary citizens arming themselves like the military.

 

[Wildfire]

Evolve? America is the greatest nation on earth. Is it perfect? No. But theres not another country in the world thats gotten it anywhere close to right like we have. Unfortuantly our freedoms have given way to great mistakes like Obama, giving socalists and communists the right to speak and spread lies. Still, we remain the geatest nation on earth becuase of our freedoms.
The founding fathers understood that unless a goverment remains scared that a people can say enough is enough and can actually get rid of it or protect themselves against tyranny, it cant help but become corrupt and enslave its people. Its human nature.

If you can say "America is the greatest nation on earth" then it's clear that you and I are using very different measuring sticks.

But the fact that you can conceptualize too much freedom in certain areas as less than optimal is a good thing in my opinion.

BTW, what didn't you like about my use of the word "evolve"?

 

[Icedream]

What is the point of continuing this thread? It's painfully obvious that nobody is going to be changing their opinions any time soon. I say we lock it and throw it away

 

[Eventhorizon]

If you can say "America is the greatest nation on earth" then it's clear that you and I are using very different measuring sticks.

But the fact that you can conceptualize too much freedom in certain areas as less than optimal is a good thing in my opinion.

BTW, what didn't you like about my use of the word "evolve"?

What nation your opinion is a better representation of what humanity strives for in a best case scenario and why?

A person could evolve into a puddle of goo. Evolve isnt always a good thing unless defined and even then its a matter of perspective and subjectivity.

 

[Sloe Djinn]

I think a good question is: which countries do better than the US at managing gun violence and what can we learn from their example that is applicable to us? Being the best, first, or greatest by any criteria does not exclude the presence of weaknesses or even glaring faults in some areas.

 

[Wildfire]

I think a good question is: which countries do better than the US at managing gun violence and what can we learn from their example that is applicable to us? Being the best, first, or greatest by any criteria does not exclude the presence of weaknesses or even glaring faults in some areas.

Agreed 100%

 

[Eventhorizon]

What nation your opinion is a better representation of what humanity strives for in a best case scenario and why?

A person could evolve into a puddle of goo. Evolve isnt always a good thing unless defined and even then its a matter of perspective and subjectivity.

How about just violence in general? Take guns away and violence doesnt go away. What goes away is people ability to protect themselves. Most senior citizens, women confronted by a knife weilding 250+ lbs guy... these people dont stand a chance. They can beg but do little else. Dont say more cops. Most people here seem to be anticop and you cant have it both ways. Or you could say, "I have lived my entire life and never been confronted or robbed". Lucky you then but what happens when it ends up on your doorstep? Oh well tough luck? Give up your money. If they want to rape.you tough luck but oh well. Kindnap you, same.
You take peoples ability to defend themselves, you take the possibility an attacker might have to deal with someone who has a gun away in a nation of 400 million people and its open season for them.

And I am sorry but yeah, needing to potentially have to defend ourselves against a corrupt goverment? Take our ability away to keep them in check and they run mad with power. Look at them right now.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I think a good question is: which countries do better than the US at managing gun violence and what can we learn from their example that is applicable to us? Being the best, first, or greatest by any criteria does not exclude the presence of weaknesses or even glaring faults in some areas.

We need to do better. A lot better but removing guns isnt even close to part of the answer or even an option. If theres going to be a real discussion that needs to be understood right off that bat and never spoken of even in jest again.

 

[just me]

Everyone that buys a gun fills out a Form 4473 in my neck of the woods(USA). It is then called in to NICS before the sale. https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics Laws cannot be made to rule everyone because someone went wrong with a gun. Guns stop people like that, and many prayers go up wishing for someone with a gun to come to their help.

 

[Skarekrow]

Everyone that buys a gun fills out a Form 4473 in my neck of the woods(USA). It is then called in to NICS before the sale. https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics Laws cannot be made to rule everyone because someone went wrong with a gun. Guns stop people like that, and many prayers go up wishing for someone with a gun to come to their help.

Yeah...you just outlined a big part of the problem.
- Regulations vary by state, some have stricter measures for guns and others have almost none.
Your state may have forms to fill out, while others can go buy an AR-15 from some dude on Craigslist...no background checks, no forms, you don’t even need to check ID for age...all legal thanks to the gun manufacture lobby.
The sheer number of guns we have is going to take time to bring under control.
Trump suggesting that 20% of our teachers should be armed would make their numbers almost twice as large as the existing police force in the whole of the United States (I’m sure we can pay for that) - brilliant!

 

[just me]

Also, Scalia, a noted supporter of the second amendment, drew the line at military-grade weapons and stated specifically that the second amendment does not extend to ordinary citizens arming themselves like the military.

Darn it!

 

[Skarekrow]

Trump’s body language says it all.

 

[Sloe Djinn]

We need to do better. A lot better but removing guns isnt even close to part of the answer or even an option. If theres going to be a real discussion that needs to be understood right off that bat and never spoken of even in jest again.

A real discussion about curbing shooting massacres doesn’t involve forbidding people to speak or even joke about specific options. Every possibility has positives and negatives and they should be explored exhaustively if people are going to take the problem seriously. It doesn’t matter if a ban isn’t the answer.

 

[Eventhorizon]

A real discussion about curbing shooting massacres doesn’t involve forbidding people to speak or even joke about specific options. Every possibility has positives and negatives and they should be explored exhaustively if people are going to take the problem seriously. It doesn’t matter if a ban isn’t the answer.

I meant what I said. Its a touchy subject. Dont joke about banning guns anymore than you would joke about using them against nonagressors. Very simple, very real. If a discussion cant have that then there will be no discussion and there we are spinning wheels again because of an ignorant few.

 

[Sloe Djinn]

I meant what I said. Its a touchy subject. Dont joke about banning guns anymore than you would joke about using them against nonagressors. Very simple, very real. If a discussion cant have that then there will be no discussion and there we are spinning wheels again because of an ignorant few.

Why is it touchy? Are you talking about an emotional reaction? Serious question fwiw.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Why is it touchy? Are you talking about an emotional reaction? Serious question fwiw.

Emotional? Not at all.
By threatening to take away someone's ability to defend themselves you are threatening their life. Do you really want to go around threateing peoples lives? Not a good thing to do in this day and age.

 

[Sloe Djinn]

Emotional? Not at all.
By threatening to take away someone's ability to defend themselves you are threatening their life. Do you really want to go around threateing peoples lives? Not a good thing to do in this day and age.

I’m skeptical of your claim that it’s not an emotional reaction but will concede in advance that it is irrelevant to the discussion.

I see that you (and you are of course not alone) seem to associate gun ownership strongly with the ability to protect oneself from harm. That I will not debate in terms of the potential for facing an armed assailant.

However I am unclear as to how the very discussion of a ban equates to threatening people’s lives.

This is weird to me because I feel like you are viewing me like some kind of bizzaro flavus aquila who just said the right wing equivalent of “why can’t we just discuss putting minorities in a big gas chamber?”

It’s an alien viewpoint to me but I guess i’m confused because I generally see those who are pro guns as being very very respectful of the military and law enforcement and yet they also seem to be the most worried about those people turning on them.

As far as criminals, and I think this was a focal point of your arguments, I would be interested to explore how many and what types of their guns are domestically diverted vs imported.

I still disagree that certain topics in the overall debate, such as a ban, should be off limits. Hell, I don’t think that arming school staff is right but I don’t think it’s right to refuse to let people discuss it.

 

[pzl2lxie81mc]

Actually, Scalia uses the M-16 as an example of a military-type gun that is banned. From what I understand, an AR-15 is only a lighter version of an M-16 and should be banned. But, thanks for that smart analogy with the fighter jets.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I’m skeptical of your claim that it’s not an emotional reaction but will concede in advance that it is irrelevant to the discussion.

I see that you (and you are of course not alone) seem to associate gun ownership strongly with the ability to protect oneself from harm. That I will not debate in terms of the potential for facing an armed assailant.

However I am unclear as to how the very discussion of a ban equates to threatening people’s lives.

This is weird to me because I feel like you are viewing me like some kind of bizzaro flavus aquila who just said the right wing equivalent of “why can’t we just discuss putting minorities in a big gas chamber?”

It’s an alien viewpoint to me but I guess i’m confused because I generally see those who are pro guns as being very very respectful of the military and law enforcement and yet they also seem to be the most worried about those people turning on them.

As far as criminals, and I think this was a focal point of your arguments, I would be interested to explore how many and what types of their guns are domestically diverted vs imported.

I still disagree that certain topics in the overall debate, such as a ban, should be off limits. Hell, I don’t think that arming school staff is right but I don’t think it’s right to refuse to let people discuss it.

Ok. Did you have a question or did you simply want to make this statement?

If you dont mind let me ask you a question. Lets say that one day you are unlucky enough to have your life threatened by a stranger or strangers. Your not in a position to get away from them and theres no one around who you can be sure of getting a call of help to before they potentially end your life. What do you consider your options to be?
Next, the same situation except you have a loved one with you.
In either situation calling for help is either impossible or highly unlikely to do anything other than get you killed. Can you go over your thoughts on these scenrios?

 

[just me]

An M-16 is a full auto Class III weapon and is highly regulated IN THE LAWS YOU WILL NOT READ.

Actually, Scalia uses the M-16 as an example of a military-type gun that is banned. From what I understand, an AR-15 is only a lighter version of an M-16 and should be banned. But, thanks for that smart analogy with the fighter jets.