Show of Hands

And that’s why democrats shouldn’t be in charge

maybe it's because he's part of a terrorist organization dipshìt. Guns aren't the issue, they ended the crime

You lost me on that tyrannical government argument that’s been used by the gun lobbyists for ever - just to sell more arms - so you buying a bunch of military grade arms and now are collecting dust in your closet will keep you free? You sir are nuts.

There are millions of dead Jews who would beg to differ.

As did Trump ranting about immigration control after the NYC killings. If this mentally deranged person in Texas had been Muslim, even if born in the USA, then the narrative would have been quite different, in the emotional turmoil after the tragedy.

Yes. Hopefully they WOULD collect dust. That’s the point. Merely having them- no, merely having the RIGHT and ABILITY to acquire and own them- is typically enough.

You think the idea is crazy and that it cannot happen in America because it never has nor has ever really been a threat. What you fail to understand is that it has never happened here precisely because of the 2nd Amendment.

Otto: The closest thing we’ve had to a dictatorship since Nixon was president is the administration presently in power, Trump’s. Both Republican by the way. Leave Dims out of the “take over the country” narrative. We believe in democracy.

They had guns just didn’t have stupas and tiger tanks and every police force rounding them up like rats because that’s what the Hitler machine called them. Sound familiar ? Trump calling out minorities and religions ?

True. Both issues are worth discussing. And discussion of both issues should be reserved for stabler times when reason and logic prevail over emotion. Also, in both cases, the problem is bad/evil people, not guns or knives or bombs or commercial aircraft.

Obvious:

First, tyranny has no party. Human nature is for any one person to acquire whatever power he or she can, and to use it to take advantage of others to their own benefit. The Constitution was drawn up the way it was with this as the primary concern.

Second, Nixon sucked. Not because he was a tyrant, but because he was a progressive. He did nothing tyrannical except creating the EPA. He DID do some really bad, illegal things and the Constitution took care of him.

Third, the most tyrannical president, certainly in our lifetime, was Barrack “pen and phone, evade the Constitution” Obama. Luckily, he faced just enough opposition to avert disaster. But you know damn well, based on his absolute disdain for ANYONE to the right of Nancy Pelosi and his speech and actions toward them, he would have had them locked away if he could have.

BlackC, that is completely false. Armed citizenry was illegal in Nazi Germany. ESPECIALLY for Jews. Jews did NOT have guns. They DID until they were banned. Once they were banned, the atrocities happened.

Could you direct me to the clip/speech in which Trump advocated for any law-abiding minorities to be rounded up? I keep hearing this is a thing, but I cannot actually find anything remotely like it anywhere. And I have been searching in good faith for months. I have heard many pundits say that he has promoted such ideas, but thus far it appears to be nothing but fear-mongering.

You obviously haven’t read anything about how ww2 happened . Do you wrk for the NRA?

Lol u are totally brainwashed

True I am more worried about all these militias playing army on weekends leaving their trash behind . These cats are their own deciders of who is patriotic and American based on their own sick principles .

Otto: Your response to me is nuts. You sound like a Trump, NRA guy trying to sound sane. Keep trying, your not there yet.

Sorry. The Jews must have imposed their own gun ban on themselves. Because they sure as hell didn’t have any when the SS came and hauled them off to concentration camps.

That’s interesting, Obvious, because I am not a Trump guy. I’m a constitutionalist and he is far from, yet much closer than Obama or Hillary or Bernie.

I am, however, an NRA guy insomuch as I support their position of protecting perhaps the most crucial of the Bill of Rights. Although 1st Amendment is altogether critical, it ceases to exist in the absence of the 2nd Amendment. I am not, however, a member or associated with them at all other than in the belief that self-preservation is an inalienable right.

These same people saying “ our thoughts and prayers are with you” are the same people who are supported by the NRA and gun manufacturers

Really, that justifies attacking? That’s ludicrous & and excuse.

This user is currently being ignored

These days the time between shootings seems to be getting shorter and shorter

Dude there have been 1000 gun deaths since the Las Vegas killings . I would think anytime is the right time to state the ban on military grade firearms with magazines larger than 6 and no auto or 50 cals either

1,000 guns have died? That’s terrible. It’s a good thing more are being made every day!

It also created 1000 job openings if you insist

Funny sick shit - you fit right in with Trump supporters that it’s all about them - as long as they can get their little boners blasting away on unnecessary killing machines

Well now. That came out of nowhere, haha.

Ya it’s just insanity living in this gun crazed society and coming up justification on why everyone needs to own military grade firearms with large magazines . The Trumpster recently authorized 75000 mentally defective people to buy the same guns? I would rather have the black helicopters never coming vs nuts running around with high velocity guns crying protect my 2nd amendment . Total insanity

Black, we already have restrictions on “military grade firearms”, do we not? I’m definitely a 2nd Amendment (actually, all our Amendments!🙂) guy, though surely wouldn’t characterize myself “gun crazed”. (Maybe I didn’t make that clear in my comments above. I was specifically addressing politicization of a tragic event, per poll, rather than actual policies involved. To this, I’d say BOTH Party’s have shown themselves quite adept!) You’ve made your position clear, but you’re not pushing against the headwinds of President Trump, but rather our Constitution. I would submit to you the vast, overwhelming majority of gun owners are much like myself: Responsible; not crazed, or insane. Black, what do we do in a free society, mitigate consequence by eliminating Rights?
.

First identifying what’s a right that is equal to all?

I was a hunter for 50 years but never saw a need to own automatic , semi auto military arms with massive magazines . That’s not a right but if we keep it as a part of 2nd amend than everyone who owns or wants to buy one goes through extreme vetting just like the Trumpster wants to do to all Muslims etc . If they fail turn them back in

I appreciate your experience and how it has helped shape your opinion. But these are YOUR experiences. I would humbly submit that others might have the same or different experiences, and arrive at a very different conclusion. That doesn’t make anyone wrong, it only means that you are all free! To your point on vetting, we come a bit closer, as I take no issue with background checks, but at the point-of-sale. However, submitting ourselves as established owners, or those who merely contemplate a firearms acquisition, to government-authored scrutiny, is a bit more troublesome, for ME. The immigration debate, we can have another time.
.

Oh yeah. It’s a mental disorder. Poor fuckers.

This user is currently being ignored

Where are you getting the statistics? As far as I know America has the highest gun violence in the developed world.

This user is currently being ignored

This user is currently being ignored

Agree

Like Trump following that truck incident up in NY..

Exactly, Beach.

This user is currently being ignored

This user is currently being ignored

There's a lot of "excuses" for not implementing "gun control". For starters, there's already thousands of federal, state, and local gun laws on the books. Besides, the gun grabbers are really bad at coming up with realistic/effective proposals. Background checks? Already have them, the "gun show loophole" is basically a myth. Assault weapon ban? Ineffective; it bans arbitrary cosmetic features without addressing actual firepower.

Magazine capacity limits? Ineffective, most halfway practiced shooters can reload in <2 seconds, and in any case there's already hundreds of millions of untraceable standard capacity mags in circulation. Ammunition bans/restrictions? Again, ineffective. Most serious shooters have reloading equipment and could supply themselves indefinitely. I'm a gun rights man because facts and logic says that gun control, while effective in other countries, would be tragically futile here.

Not to mention that fact that you don’t own other people and, as such, have no right to control what they can or cannot own.

This user is currently being ignored

Za, we don’t need STRICTER gun control laws. We just need them to enforce the ones we already have. In this case, it was the Air Force that dropped the ball and allowed this man to have guns that he was NOT supposed to be allowed to have. How about we work on enforcing the laws we already have, and stop trying to take away a person’s constitutional rights?

And the fact that you’re calling us rednecks is EXACTLY why Trump won the election. Keep up that elitist, condescending attitude and we’ll keep winning!

Btw, the fact that some law abiding men (heroes) had guns of their own is exactly why the body count in this case is not higher and why he was stopped and held until police arrived. It’s also why the body count wasn’t higher in the church shooting in TN last month—and why you didn’t hear much about that story—it didn’t meet the liberal media agenda!

...

www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/11/06/the-air-force-says-it-failed-to-follow-procedures-allowing-texas-church-shooter-to-obtain-firearms/?utm_term=.b24f2a06fcc1


...

Gunfighter: poor arguments. Effective, but logically flawed. If you apply the same logic to traffic control then we’d have no speed limits, no stop signs, no airbags or seat belts, etc. If they don’t eliminate the problem entirely, don’t bother. BS!

Well, if logic were applied to roadway design, things definitely would be different, haha. You’re correct that here would be no “speed limits.”

Airbags and seatbelts are experimentally proven to work. Conversely, I could take you to a range and prove to you that a Ruger Mini-14 (legal under AWB) and an AR-15 (illegal under AWB) have exactly the same amount of firepower and merely look different.

The right to keep and bare arms is open to interpretation just as the right to free speech. The right to free speech does not give you the right to use that speech to defame, insult, and assault others tho some will interpret it as that to justify their actions. Laws were made regarding this due to the actions of individuals just as laws were made in regards to firearms. The forefathers could not have predicted we would’ve become so advanced as to have mass destruction weapons so easily accessible. While the right to bare arms is important, the reality is due to the actions of several individuals and groups, some sort of system needs to be implemented to attempt to prevent these shootings. Columbine was years ago and the country was astonished that something like that could happen however now, it seems most people expect these situations.

The issue is that with the amount of unregistered firearms, easy access, and mentally disturbed individuals ( including ptsd vets who can’t or don’t get help), it’s nearly impossible to implement any kind of system. Another issue is that in these situations, politicians are so caught up with a quick fix or getting votes that they don’t actually think about the issues. There are far more responsible gun owners than crazies. In fact, several shootings have been stopped by lone gun owners who were prepared and calm in a potentially catastrophic situation.

Proper education will help prevent accidental gun deaths and how to react in situations such as Las Vegas to, requiring war vets to go through therapy after discharge to help with any issues that arise, and promoting positive responsible gun ownership is key. I’ve known far more positive, educated, helpful gun owners than the redneck hostile ones the media tries to portray the majority as. This issues isn’t cut and dry so stating guns are our rights because of the second amendment is just as naive as the other side stating guns are bad and need bans because of the actions of a minority of destructive owners.

The right to your own property is inherent. That said, the second amendment to the federal constitution is written in very plain English. Your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No conditions.

The right to your own property is not inherent, that is a delusion we tell ourselves. Even a home bought is conditional on paying the taxes to government or else the home you own is taken away. Just as freedom of speech is also broad and does not go into specifics so is the second amendment and that is the biggest issue, as It can be interpreted to benefit either side. It is written in plain English but in a broad scope and referenced a militia in order for a free State’s protection not an Individuals. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." By the theory that this broad scope is the end all be all then theoretically someone can run through SOH trolling and defaming individuals claiming free speech and not be banned or punished.

I am pro gun however, using the second amendment as an end all be all is ineffective.

That someone can or does violate your rights doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

Until 1865 your right was to own a slave and slaves had no rights. Until 1920 women had no right to vote. Both of these were changes made to the constitution in which you are using as defense to gun ownership. The constitution was made to be amended ( article 5) and changed so using it as a defense for gun ownership will never be effective.

Rights are conditional based on society.

People own themselves and can’t own others in actuality. Again, someone violating your rights doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

That’d be like saying if I steal your car, then you lose your right to it. It’s just nonsensical.

Our rights as humans are not what’s in question. You just used the rights given by the second amendment as defense and yet refuse to acknowledge that same constitution can change your rights and has done so in the past. The reality is congress could take those rights away and then where would your defense be?

That is why the gun debate will go nowhere as both sides refuse to recognize the flaws in their logic.

I’m not sure if you meant to respond to me or not with that as it doesn’t relate to anything I’ve said. The right to your own property is inherent to your existence and is so regardless of any violations thereof.

Please see your 8:23 am reply. You referenced the 2 amendment. The fact that the constitution allows changes means that right CAN be infringed upon at any time.

You’re right as a human being is nothing more than to be alive and protect that life. How you choose to do so is preference not a right. Choosing to be a part of a society means you are choosing to allow that society to dictate certain privileges and rights. Guns are a construct of society and thus falls under society’s rules not your perceived right. If you don’t like the rules, change them. Stop whining and doing nothing.

You can’t use the 2nd amendment as a catch all for gun rights. It’s changeable and can be taken away.

I was just correcting you on your assertion that it was “up for interpretation.” Separate issue entirely.

As far as an argument on prohibiting others from owning things you don’t like. You don’t own other people and, as such, have no right to prohibit them from owning things you don’t like.

Literally all politicians do it. Not that that refutes your point though. 😀

There’s a definite correlation.

It was appropriate to discuss workplace safety after the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire.

It was appropriate to discuss public health after the Spanish Flu outbreak.

It was appropriate to discuss financial reform after the stock market crashes of 1929 and 2007.

Maybe immediately after a tragic event is exactly the time to discuss preventive measures.

Law enforcement knows this. Statutes of limitation exist because memories fade and evidence becomes less reliable the further removed you are from an event.

I'm not against learning from tragedies (of course) but I'm against the urgent reaction, the need to respond the same day or day after while they are still cleaning up after the tragedy. Let them finish processing the crime scene, funerals taken care of, get the facts of the event straight etc and then we can analyze what happened, what can be done etc.
.

I see your point. Now if only Trump would listen to you.

What weapon are you talking about?

Car?
Aircraft?
Chef knife?
Moving van?
Fertilizer and diesel fuel?
Match and can of gas?

One one constant in all of the above being a weapon is THE PERSON USING IT.

I wish we’d finally acknowledge that.

This just in - Mass shooters and terrorists don't care about laws! What's a gun-free zone to someone who is planning mass murder? It's a defenseless victim zone.

I was talking about a bomb in my hypothetical, take it to mean what you will.

No, Paraguas, in this case, he was NOT walking around legally with a weapon. It’s the Air Force’s fault that he was walking around with a weapon that was illegal for him to have!

Threatening to take people’s guns in this case is reprehensible, because it’s only because their were heroes with guns that this guy was stopped.

What we need to do is start with enforcing the laws already on the books and making sure that we follow up with people that are dangerous, like this man was. If the AF had done their job, he wouldn’t have been able to legally bought a weapon!

www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/11/06/the-air-force-says-it-failed-to-follow-procedures-allowing-texas-church-shooter-to-obtain-firearms/?utm_term=.b24f2a06fcc1

...

My thing was a hypothetical, I wasn’t referring to anything specific. Just that if the legislation is meant to make a violent act impossible or difficult to commit in the future, then it’s appropriate to talk about.

That might be what you’re talking about Pato, but you can’t deny that the politicians that are capitalizing on this tragedy are pushing to take guns away from law abiding citizens. And these 26 people would still be alive if the government under Obama had just done what they were supposed to do and enforce the laws we already have!

So who is to blame here? It’s NOT Republican gun owners! It’s Obama’s admin that didn’t follow the law!

...

Your first claim is true. The second claim is speculative, but I agree with it anyway. Your third claim that republicans aren’t responsible, they’re not directly responsible and it’s very difficult to determine indirect responsibility, so I’ll just go ahead and accept that claim too. The fourth claim blaming Obama’s admins, it’s difficult to determine indirect blame so I’m not going to accept that one.

The 2nd one is not speculative. If the AF had done what they were supposed to do, this man wouldn’t have been able to legally buy the guns he had. As for the fourth one, have you heard the term, “The Buck Stops Here?” Plenty of people are blaming Trump for anything that happens with his underlings, right?

....

Your claim was that if Obama’s administration did what it was supposed to, the shooter wouldn’t have gotten the gun. Obama tried to enforce the gun laws available, but its difficult to take control of a decentralized organization like law enforcement. Each police officer has some level of autonomy, and each police district has some autonomy, and each state has some autonomy. If he got rid of that autonomy in an unprecedented act of authoritarianism, his administration could be plausibly blamed for this shooting. Otherwise it’s just speculative. If Obama was more forceful, maybe the laws would have been properly enforced, or maybe there would have been more resistance by people afraid the next step would be losing their guns. It didn’t happen so we don’t know. We can only speculate.

I’m not talking about the police. Did you read the article I linked about the Air Force? They’re admitting they were at fault in this case.