St. Louis high school Shooting: Doors Locked; Metal Detectors; Seven Security Guards on Grounds: Shooter Still Gained entry and Killed.

[homersapien 11,352]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Okay. Do you think generally someone who is hell-bent on shooting school children would likewise purchase a firearm illegally? Can you imagine a scenario where it would actually be easier to buy a firearm off of the black market as opposed to legally purchasing one? 

With our current laws, they don't have to buy one off the "black market".  They can simply buy one from any individual who has one to sell, legally.

 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

With our current laws, they don't have to buy one off the "black market".  They can simply buy one from any individual who has one to sell, legally.

 

 

Okay. Do you think generally someone who is hell-bent on shooting school children would likewise purchase a firearm illegally? Can you imagine a scenario where it would actually be easier to buy a firearm off of the black market as opposed to legally purchasing one? 

[homersapien 11,352]

38 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Okay. Do you think generally someone who is hell-bent on shooting school children would likewise purchase a firearm illegally? Can you imagine a scenario where it would actually be easier to buy a firearm off of the black market as opposed to legally purchasing one?

Sure, I can imagine such a scenario. 

 

[GoAU 1,599]

On 10/25/2022 at 10:35 AM, CoffeeTiger said:

 

Those beliefs may be true for a lot of Conservatives and NRA members, but eventually people are going to tire from all this and start valuing the lives of kids more than individual freedoms.....wonder how long that'll be? 

Keep offering to surrender your freedoms for perceived security if you’d like.  Put more faith into the same government that refuses to keep criminals in jail and doesn’t even pretend to secure our border to protect you.   Good plan….

On 11/9/2022 at 9:57 AM, Leftfield said:

This statement is exactly why almost nothing can ever get done on gun violence. As soon as someone even whispers something to the effect of scaling back gun rights, many will scream "next thing you know they'll be repealing the 2nd Amendment, because that's what they REALLY want!!!" It becomes a rallying cry for gun rights activists, further hyperbole gets spewed about an overreaching and authoritarian government taking over because we'd be defenseless without our guns, and all thought on the subject is removed.

Why do you jump straight to ending the 2nd Amendment? There are many, many degrees in-between.

Because that is exactly what will happen.  Look at the playbook Canada has been following - that’s the liberal plan to a “T”.  Any “compromise” on the 2A is only continued tightening / restriction.   There is no such thing as “compromise” when all one side gets is to keep a fraction of what they had.  

On 11/9/2022 at 10:42 AM, arein0 said:

That's what you've been groomed to think.  

Again this is another issue where the left wants moderation and the right is telling the sheep they want to take your guns away.

Why is it easier to buy a gun than go through airport security?

It’s not - that’s a stupid comment.

On 11/9/2022 at 8:13 PM, homersapien said:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"...

Like I said, if it can't be done using this part of the amendment (which is totally obsolete) we should change it.

Our situation with guns in this country today has nothing to do with a "well regulated militia" and it's certainly not helping our security.  Just the opposite.

 

 

 

It is as relevant today as it has ever been.  First, you need to educate yourself as to the purpose of the comma in the second amendment.  Secondly - there are always external threats.  But hey, you don’t need to worry, you can always Rey on someone else to protect you and yours, right?

On 11/11/2022 at 11:08 AM, icanthearyou said:

Is that not what the founders put forth?  How convenient to call that "opinion".

 

That’s not at all what they put forth.  The 2A says “arms” not muskets. And there were other weapons available that weren’t restricted either.  

[Leftfield 2,583]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

Because that is exactly what will happen.  Look at the playbook Canada has been following - that’s the liberal plan to a “T”.  Any “compromise” on the 2A is only continued tightening / restriction.   There is no such thing as “compromise” when all one side gets is to keep a fraction of what they had.  

Canada, good point...that cesspool of crime where the only time you're safe on the streets are the days the tyrannical government forces march through on their show parades.

[GoAU 1,599]

31 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Canada, good point...that cesspool of crime where the only time you're safe on the streets are the days the tyrannical government forces march through on their show parades.

Nice work on context.  Was talking about the not so subtle encroachment of gun control.  That’s what happens without a constitution though.  All it takes is the Prime Minister to decide he doesn’t like something for it to become illegal - what a horrible system.  Essentially a dictator.  
 

Of course if you want to draw connections to overall crime, I’d encourage you to compare the crime rates for legal gun owners (especially those with carry permits) versus the general population.  But, I doubt you will as that won’t fit your narrative. 

[Leftfield 2,583]

Just now, GoAU said:

Nice work on context.  Was talking about the not so subtle encroachment of gun control.  That’s what happens without a constitution though.  All it takes is the Prime Minister to decide he doesn’t like something for it to become illegal - what a horrible system.  Essentially a dictator.  
 

Of course if you want to draw connections to overall crime, I’d encourage you to compare the crime rates for legal gun owners (especially those with carry permits) versus the general population.  But, I doubt you will as that won’t fit your narrative. 

If you think the Prime Minister can make something illegal just because they want it so, you really don't understand Canada's government. And by the way, they do have a constitution. The US is nowhere close to unique in the world in that respect. 

Do you even know my narrative? You appear to assume I want all guns taken away, which I have never supported. Your narrative appears to be not giving an inch on any gun laws because it will inevitably lead to the loss of all guns, which is absurd. That stance will actually make it more likely to happen, because you'll force people into an all-or-nothing approach when they get sick of seeing kids gunned down.

My stance is severe restriction on guns that have no practical use. So called "assault weapons," or high-powered semi-automatic rifles, are far less effective for home defense than handguns and are not needed for hunting. Why should they be so easy to obtain? What good do they do? 

 

 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

2 hours ago, GoAU said:

Keep offering to surrender your freedoms for perceived security if you’d like.  Put more faith into the same government that refuses to keep criminals in jail and doesn’t even pretend to secure our border to protect you.   Good plan….

Because that is exactly what will happen.  Look at the playbook Canada has been following - that’s the liberal plan to a “T”.  Any “compromise” on the 2A is only continued tightening / restriction.   There is no such thing as “compromise” when all one side gets is to keep a fraction of what they had.  

It’s not - that’s a stupid comment.

It is as relevant today as it has ever been.  First, you need to educate yourself as to the purpose of the comma in the second amendment.  Secondly - there are always external threats.  But hey, you don’t need to worry, you can always Rey on someone else to protect you and yours, right?

That’s not at all what they put forth.  The 2A says “arms” not muskets. And there were other weapons available that weren’t restricted either.  

I do not share in your fear and paranoia.  Why are so afraid.

The gun culture is cowardly. 

[GoAU 1,599]

32 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

If you think the Prime Minister can make something illegal just because they want it so, you really don't understand Canada's government. And by the way, they do have a constitution. The US is nowhere close to unique in the world in that respect. 

Do you even know my narrative? You appear to assume I want all guns taken away, which I have never supported. Your narrative appears to be not giving an inch on any gun laws because it will inevitably lead to the loss of all guns, which is absurd. That stance will actually make it more likely to happen, because you'll force people into an all-or-nothing approach when they get sick of seeing kids gunned down.

My stance is severe restriction on guns that have no practical use. So called "assault weapons," or high-powered semi-automatic rifles, are far less effective for home defense than handguns and are not needed for hunting. Why should they be so easy to obtain? What good do they do? 

 

 

First - I am well aware of the parliamentary system in Canada.  I would also encourage you to review the recent decrees by their PM - first on “assault weapons” and then on handguns.  See the role the parliament played in his decrees.  They were passed before the parliament even voted.  
 

Second, I appreciate you clarifying your stance on gun control, but frankly it doesn’t matter to me.   Just because you “feel” a gun doesn’t have a practical use has no merit or bearing.  I won’t even bother debating you on the effectiveness of weapons for various uses - I have plenty of experience and know what I’m talking about.  Also when you talk about “high powered” assault weapons - you do realize that the round an AR-15 uses (5.56mm / .223) is small by component to most rifle rounds, right?  
 

As to my unwillingness to compromise - you are absolutely correct - all the compromise that needed to happen (and some that shouldn’t have) has already occurred.  

[GoAU 1,599]

15 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I do not share in your fear and paranoia.  Why are so afraid.

The gun culture is cowardly. 

There no fear here.  My unwillingness to surrender my constitutional rights is not fear.  
 

Be a sheep if you’d like - you have that right.   But to say you are not afraid while trying to disarm an entire population is I rational and smells of fear.  

Edited November 20, 2022 by GoAU

[Leftfield 2,583]

6 minutes ago, GoAU said:

First - I am well aware of the parliamentary system in Canada.  I would also encourage you to review the recent decrees by their PM - first on “assault weapons” and then on handguns.  See the role the parliament played in his decrees.  They were passed before the parliament even voted. 

Will look more into it. From what I know of Canada's government I'd be very surprised that Trudeau could do that unilaterally.

10 minutes ago, GoAU said:

I won’t even bother debating you on the effectiveness of weapons for various uses - I have plenty of experience and know what I’m talking about.

Please educate me. What purpose does an "assault rifle" serve?

11 minutes ago, GoAU said:

 Also when you talk about “high powered” assault weapons - you do realize that the round an AR-15 uses (5.56mm / .223) is small by component to most rifle rounds, right?  

I do. I'm nowhere close to an expert, but I also know that round size isn't everything....the purpose of the round matters, as well (penetration, stopping power, shredding, etc.) As above, I'm wondering what practical purpose a semi-automatic rifle that uses a round designed to tumble as it hits serves.

26 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Second, I appreciate you clarifying your stance on gun control, but frankly it doesn’t matter to me.   Just because you “feel” a gun doesn’t have a practical use has no merit or bearing. 

So if someone designs a literal laser gun that can slice a person in half, that would be perfectly acceptable to own to you? No limits on what a weapon can do as long as a person can carry it? 

28 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Be a sheep if you’d like - you have that right.  

I love the way you call those who disagree sheep, even though you're avoiding thinking about why stricter gun laws might work in other countries by steadfastly asserting that any encroachment on perceived rights will lead to a complete ban. Plenty of countries allow hand gun and hunting rifle ownership, but ban assault weapons. Why do you think that wouldn't work here? 

[GoAU 1,599]

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Will look more into it. From what I know of Canada's government I'd be very surprised that Trudeau could do that unilaterally.

Please educate me. What purpose does an "assault rifle" serve? Modern sporting rifles serve numerous purposes:  defensive uses, hunting (particularly for coyote, boar, groundhog, and even deer), sport shooting (3 gun competition being a good example), or general recreational shooting.  Remember, the 2A says nothing about sport shooting, hunting, or anything other than security.  There are different scenarios to consider when thinking which tool to use.  Think of it this way - if you were to call the police because there is an armed invader in your house, you'll see the police show up with ARs more times than not.

I do. I'm nowhere close to an expert, but I also know that round size isn't everything....the purpose of the round matters, as well (penetration, stopping power, shredding, etc.) As above, I'm wondering what practical purpose a semi-automatic rifle that uses a round designed to tumble as it hits serves. All rounds (excluding frangible, armor piercing and a few odd types) are designed to tumble and / or expand.  You are correct that bullet diameter is not the only factor in a round - velocity, bullet weight, diameter, and bullet design all play into the equation.  But to be honest the 5.56 / .223 (which is the most common chambering for an AR-15 is not particularly devastating compared to the 6.8, .300 AAC, 7.62x39 or 7.62x51.   The reason the US military went from the 7.62 to the 5.56 in Vietnam was not for the ballistic performance, but more so for the weight savings - soldiers could carry much more ammo.  As a matter of fact, the Army's next generation service rifle (XM-5) uses a 6.8x51 cartridge that is MUCH more powerful to address the fact that the 5.56 round lacks sufficient lethality at range.

So if someone designs a literal laser gun that can slice a person in half, that would be perfectly acceptable to own to you? No limits on what a weapon can do as long as a person can carry it? I'll have to defer the Star Wars weaponry to a later time.  For now, there is a law in place restricting fully automatic weapons.  Although I could make the case that even this restriction is unconstitutional, in the spirit of compromise I think that's acceptable.  I also think, that in fairness the bans on short barreled rifles and suppressors need to be removed.

I love the way you call those who disagree sheep, even though you're avoiding thinking about why stricter gun laws might work in other countries by steadfastly asserting that any encroachment on perceived rights will lead to a complete ban. Plenty of countries allow hand gun and hunting rifle ownership, but ban assault weapons. Why do you think that wouldn't work here? I am not avoiding anything.  I do think that people that rely on others to protect themselves and want to relinquish their ability to defend themselves for a false sense of security are similar to sheep.  I'm OK with people making that decision for themselves, but that needs to be an individual choice.   

 

[homersapien 11,352]

16 hours ago, GoAU said:

Second, I appreciate you clarifying your stance on gun control, but frankly it doesn’t matter to me.   Just because you “feel” a gun doesn’t have a practical use has no merit or bearing.  I won’t even bother debating you on the effectiveness of weapons for various uses - I have plenty of experience and know what I’m talking about.  Also when you talk about “high powered” assault weapons - you do realize that the round an AR-15 uses (5.56mm / .223) is small by component to most rifle rounds, right?  

 

 

F = MV² 

Since you "know what you are talking about", you should understand that size of the bullet is not the only factor in the amount of force produced.  Right?

Surely you aren't comparing an AR round to a .22 rimfire, are you?

Edited November 20, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,352]

18 hours ago, GoAU said:

Secondly - there are always external threats.  But hey, you don’t need to worry, you can always Rey on someone else to protect you and yours, right?

 

I should hope so, considering the amount of money we spend on the military.

 

[GoAU 1,599]

55 minutes ago, homersapien said:

F = MV² 

Since you "know what you are talking about", you should understand that size of the bullet is not the only factor in the amount of force produced.  Right?

Surely you aren't comparing an AR round to a .22 rimfire, are you?

Absolutely not.  There is significantly more powder and weight in a 5.56 / .223 than a 22lr.  The reason I specifically delineated  5.56 / .223 is that they are very similar to each other and not at all like a .22lr.  Some ARs are only chambered in .223.  The military and most civilian ARs use a 5.56mm (which can also fire the .223 round).  The main difference is a slight difference in the taper of the shoulder of the cartridge - probably more information than you were looking for though.  
 

That being said, the 5.55 / .223 is still much less “powerful” than many other modern rifle cartridges.  

Edited November 20, 2022 by GoAU

[GoAU 1,599]

46 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I should hope so, considering the amount of money we spend on the military.

 

LOL - that I can certainly ageee with.  It’s tough when we basically have to carry the weight of defending the whole free world on our shoulders.  

[Leftfield 2,583]

 Modern sporting rifles serve numerous purposes:  defensive uses, hunting (particularly for coyote, boar, groundhog, and even deer), sport shooting (3 gun competition being a good example), or general recreational shooting.  Remember, the 2A says nothing about sport shooting, hunting, or anything other than security.  There are different scenarios to consider when thinking which tool to use.  Think of it this way - if you were to call the police because there is an armed invader in your house, you'll see the police show up with ARs more times than not.

I should have phrased differently. These rifles can be used for practical purposes, but why do they need to be? What is the need for sport rifles in hunting when there are already hunting rifles? What defensive uses do you refer to where one would be superior to a hand gun? 

As to police arriving at home invasions with ARs, when and why did that begin to happen? Do you believe that the proliferation of the same type of weapons among criminals had an effect on that?

I'll have to defer the Star Wars weaponry to a later time.  For now, there is a law in place restricting fully automatic weapons.  Although I could make the case that even this restriction is unconstitutional, in the spirit of compromise I think that's acceptable.  I also think, that in fairness the bans on short barreled rifles and suppressors need to be removed.

Why defer to a later time? Isn't it better to plan for the situation before it happens? As I mentioned in an earlier post, at the time of the Bill of Rights there were no guns coming anywhere close to the power and speed of what we have today. A person simply was not able to walk into a room with a gun and kill a large number of people within seconds. Modern weapons would likely look like something from Star Wars to someone from the late 1700's.

I am not avoiding anything.  I do think that people that rely on others to protect themselves and want to relinquish their ability to defend themselves for a false sense of security are similar to sheep.  I'm OK with people making that decision for themselves, but that needs to be an individual choice.   

So why have police at all?

And as I said, I am not advocating to outlaw all guns. What I am pointing out is that there is no need for the mass production, much less the promotion and glorification, of these weapons that can kill large numbers of people in a short time. Society got along just fine without them, but the NRA and other Republican-leaning groups have been very effective at convincing people otherwise in the last 50 years. I understand these guns have become part of our culture, and changing that culture back will obviously not happen overnight, but the simple fact is that gun violence is only getting worse. We need responsible gun owners to recognize that they need to help lead the push to eliminate weapons that aren't needed.

[autigeremt 6,569]

On 11/1/2022 at 10:30 AM, CoffeeTiger said:

 

Seems to work for every other civilized society out there that doesn't approve of their school children getting gunned down constantly. 

 

 

Apples to oranges. y’all just want to abolish the COTUS and create a new world order. 

[Leftfield 2,583]

4 hours ago, autigeremt said:

Apples to oranges. 

How so?

4 hours ago, autigeremt said:

y’all just want to abolish the COTUS and create a new world order. 

Good to see you so level-headed about this and not completely hyperbolic with right-wing extremist talking points.

[GoAU 1,599]

On 11/21/2022 at 9:26 AM, Leftfield said:

 Comments below:

I should have phrased differently. These rifles can be used for practical purposes, but why do they need to be? What is the need for sport rifles in hunting when there are already hunting rifles? What defensive uses do you refer to where one would be superior to a hand gun? You do realize that the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, right?  As to defensive situations where a rifle would be beneficial to a handgun: multiple threats would be a great example.  In addition, theoretically speaking, if I had a choice of any weapon to use in a home invasion, a rifle is a much better weapon than a handgun - period.  They just aren't as convenient

As to police arriving at home invasions with ARs, when and why did that begin to happen? Do you believe that the proliferation of the same type of weapons among criminals had an effect on that? That is certainly a possibility.   Those same criminals that are already breaking the law are the same ones that are attacking law abiding citizens and not following the laws already in place.  Hampering a law abiding citizens rights to self defense seems like punishing the victim, no?

Why defer to a later time? Isn't it better to plan for the situation before it happens? As I mentioned in an earlier post, at the time of the Bill of Rights there were no guns coming anywhere close to the power and speed of what we have today. A person simply was not able to walk into a room with a gun and kill a large number of people within seconds. Modern weapons would likely look like something from Star Wars to someone from the late 1700's. At the time of the Bill of Rights a private citizen could own ANY weapon that governments possessed - to include artillery, repeating rifles, and naval ships.  The intent of the amendment was to allow the citizenry the ability to defend themselves - not just against deer, criminals, and foreign governments, but also against tyranny from within.  It's kind of sobering when you think about it.  One could make the case that there have been quite a few restrictions on an amendment that specifically states "Shall not be infringed" already.  Now before the hyperbole starts about owning grenades and nuclear weapons - by and large I don't have a problem with the laws as they are today, with the exception of the silly rules around short barreled rifles and suppressors, but that's a debate for a different day...  So, if you want o have the "laser" discussion - sure if criminals and governments have them, then I guess if forced to make a decision in a hypothetical situation, sure a civilian should as well.

So why have police at all? Because they have an extremely valuable (and underappreciated) role in society.  However, knowing that they can't be everywhere at all times, the ability of a law abiding citizen to defend themselves and their family has to be paramount.   After all "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away".

And as I said, I am not advocating to outlaw all guns. What I am pointing out is that there is no need for the mass production, much less the promotion and glorification, of these weapons that can kill large numbers of people in a short time. Society got along just fine without them, but the NRA and other Republican-leaning groups have been very effective at convincing people otherwise in the last 50 years. I understand these guns have become part of our culture, and changing that culture back will obviously not happen overnight, but the simple fact is that gun violence is only getting worse. We need responsible gun owners to recognize that they need to help lead the push to eliminate weapons that aren't needed. I understand your point about not wanting to ban ALL guns, but you are attempting to ban some of the most effective guns.  You are also attempting to band guns that are used in less than 1% of gun related violence.  So, even if you are successful, when that has no appreciable reduction in crime - what will your next step be?   See my point?

As to your comments about 50 years ago - do you realize that, following WW2, that it was not uncommon, and certainly not illegal, for fully automatic weapons to be brought home from the war?  That wasn't an NRA or GOP agenda.  if anything there has been more erosion of the Second Amendment in the last 50 years than in all the history of our country before that.  Guns haven't "become" part of our culture - they have ALWAYS been a significant part of our culture - that's why the Second Amendment was second only to freedom of speech.    Responsible gun owners already lead from the front with regards to a law abiding society, so why continue to punish them for crimes they didn't commit?

You consistently state "guns that aren't needed" - this is your opinion, not a fact.  You are clearly entitled to your opinion and no one is trying to force you to own any type of firearm.  However, trying to force your opinion on others and strip people of constitutional rights is disingenuous at best.  I do thank you for having civil dialogue regarding this issue and although it's highly unlikely either of us will change our minds I do enjoy the discussion.

[Leftfield 2,583]

23 hours ago, GoAU said:

I should have phrased differently. These rifles can be used for practical purposes, but why do they need to be? What is the need for sport rifles in hunting when there are already hunting rifles? What defensive uses do you refer to where one would be superior to a hand gun? You do realize that the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, right?  As to defensive situations where a rifle would be beneficial to a handgun: multiple threats would be a great example.  In addition, theoretically speaking, if I had a choice of any weapon to use in a home invasion, a rifle is a much better weapon than a handgun - period.  They just aren't as convenient

As to police arriving at home invasions with ARs, when and why did that begin to happen? Do you believe that the proliferation of the same type of weapons among criminals had an effect on that? That is certainly a possibility.   Those same criminals that are already breaking the law are the same ones that are attacking law abiding citizens and not following the laws already in place.  Hampering a law abiding citizens rights to self defense seems like punishing the victim, no?

Why defer to a later time? Isn't it better to plan for the situation before it happens? As I mentioned in an earlier post, at the time of the Bill of Rights there were no guns coming anywhere close to the power and speed of what we have today. A person simply was not able to walk into a room with a gun and kill a large number of people within seconds. Modern weapons would likely look like something from Star Wars to someone from the late 1700's. At the time of the Bill of Rights a private citizen could own ANY weapon that governments possessed - to include artillery, repeating rifles, and naval ships.  The intent of the amendment was to allow the citizenry the ability to defend themselves - not just against deer, criminals, and foreign governments, but also against tyranny from within.  It's kind of sobering when you think about it.  One could make the case that there have been quite a few restrictions on an amendment that specifically states "Shall not be infringed" already.  Now before the hyperbole starts about owning grenades and nuclear weapons - by and large I don't have a problem with the laws as they are today, with the exception of the silly rules around short barreled rifles and suppressors, but that's a debate for a different day...  So, if you want o have the "laser" discussion - sure if criminals and governments have them, then I guess if forced to make a decision in a hypothetical situation, sure a civilian should as well.

So why have police at all? Because they have an extremely valuable (and underappreciated) role in society.  However, knowing that they can't be everywhere at all times, the ability of a law abiding citizen to defend themselves and their family has to be paramount.   After all "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away".

And as I said, I am not advocating to outlaw all guns. What I am pointing out is that there is no need for the mass production, much less the promotion and glorification, of these weapons that can kill large numbers of people in a short time. Society got along just fine without them, but the NRA and other Republican-leaning groups have been very effective at convincing people otherwise in the last 50 years. I understand these guns have become part of our culture, and changing that culture back will obviously not happen overnight, but the simple fact is that gun violence is only getting worse. We need responsible gun owners to recognize that they need to help lead the push to eliminate weapons that aren't needed. I understand your point about not wanting to ban ALL guns, but you are attempting to ban some of the most effective guns.  You are also attempting to band guns that are used in less than 1% of gun related violence.  So, even if you are successful, when that has no appreciable reduction in crime - what will your next step be?   See my point?

As to your comments about 50 years ago - do you realize that, following WW2, that it was not uncommon, and certainly not illegal, for fully automatic weapons to be brought home from the war?  That wasn't an NRA or GOP agenda.  if anything there has been more erosion of the Second Amendment in the last 50 years than in all the history of our country before that.  Guns haven't "become" part of our culture - they have ALWAYS been a significant part of our culture - that's why the Second Amendment was second only to freedom of speech.    Responsible gun owners already lead from the front with regards to a law abiding society, so why continue to punish them for crimes they didn't commit?

You consistently state "guns that aren't needed" - this is your opinion, not a fact.  You are clearly entitled to your opinion and no one is trying to force you to own any type of firearm.  However, trying to force your opinion on others and strip people of constitutional rights is disingenuous at best.  I do thank you for having civil dialogue regarding this issue and although it's highly unlikely either of us will change our minds I do enjoy the discussion.

I appreciate your respect in dialogue, as well. Thanks for your thoughts.

However, I think you're misrepresenting a bit on that I'm trying to take away constitutional rights. The entire point is that I don't see it that way. Because the 2nd Amendment was written at a time when our standing army was not seen as one of the preeminent powers in the world, citizens may have been needed to rally to protect the country, and it made sense for them to be armed, even if it meant keeping weapons they wouldn't normally use. You point out that the Amendment makes no mention of hunting, and of course that's true. All it mentions is a "well-regulated militia," and I don't agree with the interpretation that the militia was to protect people against their own state.

Additionally, you mentioned the 2nd Amendment being second only to freedom of speech, but freedom of speech is not absolute, either. There are limits to what a person can legally say, and those limits have evolved over time. Items in the Constitution are not immutable, as evidenced by the fact the government has mechanisms to change them, but understandably with a high threshold.

In terms of being able to protect yourself before police get there, I agree with you. This is a large reason I am fine with people being able to own certain guns, particularly in rural areas where response time is much longer. I'll also say that, when I mentioned that "assault" weapons should be highly restricted, I do believe that former military should be included in those who are allowed to keep them. In my opinion, they've earned that right, and have the knowledge and training to use them responsibly.

I do understand that sport rifles are not used in the bulk of crimes, but they are used in a disproportionate number of high-casualty crimes. And when I refer to gun culture, it's primarily the these types of weapons I refer to. Yes, guns have always been a part of American culture, but things changed about 50 years ago. I discussed this with my dad last night. After he left the Army (late 50's), he was a member of the NRA for a while, but said he left when he started to see a significant shift in attitude. It went from enthusiasts who tried to improve their knowledge of weapons and physics to become better shots to those who had an entitlement about being allowed to do whatever they want with guns. My dad left because gun safety and using guns as a utility was no longer at the forefront. This was back in the early 60's, so the shift began even earlier than I realized, at least with those he was exposed to.

Long story short, I have no wish to trample on anyone's rights, I just interpret the 2nd Amendment differently. This obviously is the battle that has been going on in the courts for a long time. To your question about stopping with just assault rifles, I'm not going to lie to you...if we were to make them almost impossible for the average citizen to get and we see a shift in mass shootings to other weapons, I would potentially advocate for their heavy restriction. However, I don't believe it is a good course of action to immediately jump to restricting all guns. Let's stop the mass-production of these rifles, as well as the glorification (not the respect) of the military mentality and the sense of entitlement to any type of weapon among general citizens, and I believe we'll begin to see a noticeable shift.

I also agree that we still need to make significant improvements to mental health awareness and treatment, but the problem with preemption is that to stop everyone before they act you'd be violating other rights.

One last note: it's been quite ironic to me that a good portion of those that support the argument of guns as a right to protect against the tyranny of the state were also all for overturning an election to reinstate a man that is openly authoritarian. Please understand, I'm not including you on this (I know your opinion of Trump), but it shows how absolute gun rights could be a double-edged sword.

 

[GoAU 1,599]

Another example of what I am referring to regarding “scope creep” in gun control was reported today:

"The idea we still allow semi-automatic weapons to be purchased is sick," Biden said. "Just sick. It has no socially redeeming value. Zero. None. Not a single solitary rationale for it except profit for the gun manufacturers."

This is not just “assault weapons” - he is talking about almost all handguns and a large portion of rifles and shotguns too.  

We both agree that the mental health system is beyond broken.  It is a core component is crime and the homelessness epidemic we are witnessing today.   
 

The 2A is very clearly phrased in its intent - the wording “shall not be infringed” is some of the strongest in the Bill of Rights.  Continuing to erode rights to treat symptoms and statistical outliers without addressing the root cause is a recipe for disaster.  Punishing law abiding citizens for crimes being committed by criminals is as un-American as it gets.  

[keywest 138]

On 10/25/2022 at 10:49 AM, aubiefifty said:

crickets is all you will get from the right. the bare bones truth is they do not care as long as they get to keep their assault weapons. i mean hell we have been praying over this for two or three decades now? and christians say what. god first. then family. then country. i might have that order wrong but if these cats think jesus is ok with their actions while people kill our own school children just because they want the right to bear arms tells me all i need to know. they do not care period. i am so sure jesus is not down with this shooting and gun crap at all. because the bottom line is people are dying because of this stance. and idiot with a brain should pretty much understand you are putting your love of guns against the right of a child to live. ther care about those unborn babies but they just do not give a damn about those precious children getting gunned down regularly. it is sickening. if you ignore what they say and watch what they do it is clear as a bell.

Guns are nothing more than a tool, just like a hammer. This weekend there will be double digit murders in Chicago (99% will be black/black crime), which has the strictest gun laws in the country and every single one of the shootings will be from unregistered and illegal guns. The left continues to ignore and whistle by the graveyard as to the real problem because it doesn't fit or support your twisted ideological agenda!

The problem is the left's total degradation of society that everybody is a victim and nobody is responsible for their actions, the lefts destruction of the nuclear family and payment to keep the father out of the home. 3...2....1.......Go with the typical leftist twisted talking point to ignore the real problems YOU created!