Brandon Strikes Again

[KansasTiger 3,248]

15 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Recent gun legislation has rarely been about the owners following the rules (besides taxes). Or even about criminals  that aren’t.  It’s usually about crazy (and background check away - crazy doesn’t always have a record).  No matter what, we cant save 4-5 people from crazy - a car, bolt action, knife ect).  But you can save the next 25 or more from a 30 round magazine semi. Or worse. Todays debate  is about how much personal liberty someone is willing to sacrifice to lower societal (especially children’s) risk.  It’s a choice and  for many good people it’s absolutely giving up something. But conspiracies aside, Imo if someone tells me it takes large magazine capacity to bag a deer or protect your home, they might want to practice a bit more at the range.

Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. 

Go change the constitution if you want more gun control.

[auburnatl1 4,977]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

I know of no hunter that has a 30 round magazine, I do know people that choose to protect their home with a rifle that will have a 30 round magazine and that would be their choice wouldn’t it be?  Why would a government restrict the options of a gun ownership because of optics?

It’s not optics. These deranged people aren’t Jason Bourne and have little to no  gun experience. When a clip or revolver is exhausted they either have to either change weapons or reload. It’s that 5-15 sec pause that they’re vulnerable. What’s been documented  repeatedly at most mass shootings is that there was literally no opportunity to counterattack them. They just kept squeezing the trigger until they were done - and then just killed themselves. 

I have 4 guns. All small capacity.  I protect my house with a shotgun. If I can’t stop them with 3 shots, they get the laptop and the widescreen.

[TexasTiger 12,958]

30 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I know of no hunter that has a 30 round magazine, I do know people that choose to protect their home with a rifle that will have a 30 round magazine and that would be their choice wouldn’t it be?  Why would a government restrict the options of a gun ownership because of optics?

Wade Christopher wouldn’t need 30 rounds — he’d only need 30 seconds.

[I_M4_AU 7,863]

12 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Wade Christopher wouldn’t need 30 rounds — he’d only need 30 seconds.

Yeah, but he’s Wade Christopher……

[I_M4_AU 7,863]

28 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

It’s not optics. These deranged people aren’t Jason Bourne and have little to no  gun experience. When a clip or revolver is exhausted they either have to either change weapons or reload. It’s that 5-15 sec pause that they’re vulnerable. What’s been documented  repeatedly at most mass shootings is that there was literally no opportunity to counterattack them. They just kept squeezing the trigger until they were done - and then just killed themselves. 

I have 4 guns. All small capacity.  I protect my house with a shotgun. If I can’t stop them with 3 shots, they get the laptop and the widescreen.

Yes it is optics.  There would be no discussion if not for optics and to appease the uninitiated.  The point is you are trying to restrict the choices of law abiding citizens as to what gun he/she should use because of, as you put it, the crazies.

The mass shooter in Allen Tx was taken down by a cop, not many citizens are waiting for the 5-15 seconds to attack the shooter.  They would more than likely use that time to run and/or hide.  That is what mass shooters are counting on.  Most, if not all, mass shooters are optimistic enough to bring several loaded magazines along with them and multiple guns.  They are crazy and on a suicide mission.

If there are multiple criminals in your home defense scenario you might want to rethink your choice of weapon or at least take out the plug at home.  You are not really defending your laptop and the widescreen, you’re protecting your family.

[AU9377 4,977]

55 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes it is optics.  There would be no discussion if not for optics and to appease the uninitiated.  The point is you are trying to restrict the choices of law abiding citizens as to what gun he/she should use because of, as you put it, the crazies.

The mass shooter in Allen Tx was taken down by a cop, not many citizens are waiting for the 5-15 seconds to attack the shooter.  They would more than likely use that time to run and/or hide.  That is what mass shooters are counting on.  Most, if not all, mass shooters are optimistic enough to bring several loaded magazines along with them and multiple guns.  They are crazy and on a suicide mission.

If there are multiple criminals in your home defense scenario you might want to rethink your choice of weapon or at least take out the plug at home.  You are not really defending your laptop and the widescreen, you’re protecting your family.

There is no one pill that will fix our problem with gun violence.  However, there is also nothing wrong with reasonable restrictions on who can purchase weapons that are being used to kill every day.  We should be embarrassed that we have this problem.  It is nothing to be proud of and we need to address it from multiple fronts.  There has never been a court to rule that the 2nd Amendment is unlimited.  It clearly isn't.  There is no possibility that the writers of the 2nd Amendment envisioned a country struggling with this problem as we are now or weapons capable of killing in the numbers we have now.  Pretending that large magazine assault rifles are somehow an American right is just ridiculous.

[auburnatl1 4,977]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes it is optics.  There would be no discussion if not for optics and to appease the uninitiated.  The point is you are trying to restrict the choices of law abiding citizens as to what gun he/she should use because of, as you put it, the crazies.

The mass shooter in Allen Tx was taken down by a cop, not many citizens are waiting for the 5-15 seconds to attack the shooter.  They would more than likely use that time to run and/or hide.  That is what mass shooters are counting on.  Most, if not all, mass shooters are optimistic enough to bring several loaded magazines along with them and multiple guns.  They are crazy and on a suicide mission.

If there are multiple criminals in your home defense scenario you might want to rethink your choice of weapon or at least take out the plug at home.  You are not really defending your laptop and the widescreen, you’re protecting your family.

You’re right. What I really need is a rpg and a bazooka. I’ also might try mining the front yard.

Edited July 13, 2023 by auburnatl1

[KansasTiger 3,248]

8 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

You’re right. What I really need is a rog and a bazooka.

Where do I sign up?

[I_M4_AU 7,863]

33 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

There is no one pill that will fix our problem with gun violence.  However, there is also nothing wrong with reasonable restrictions on who can purchase weapons that are being used to kill every day.  We should be embarrassed that we have this problem.  It is nothing to be proud of and we need to address it from multiple fronts.  There has never been a court to rule that the 2nd Amendment is unlimited.  It clearly isn't.  There is no possibility that the writers of the 2nd Amendment envisioned a country struggling with this problem as we are now or weapons capable of killing in the numbers we have now.  Pretending that large magazine assault rifles are somehow an American right is just ridiculous.

There is some leaps in logic in your statement.  There already are restrictions as to who can buy a weapon and those restrictions are abused on a daily basis.  Hunter Biden was one of those abusers and thankfully he didn’t kill anyone.  Most laws are after the fact type of laws that takes a criminal act to activate.  Preventive laws requires a lot of manpower to apply them correctly and we, as a nation, are not willing to commit to that. Or, at least, haven’t been.

Most people know the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited and those that don’t operate outside the law. The Framers of the Constitution seems to have done a good job of writing their thoughts on the restrictions of government, unfortunately the government is always looking for way around that language no matter what the clause or amendment is.  From unilaterally forgiving student loans (which only Congress can do) to vaccine mandates under OSHA government seems to believe the Constitution is a stumbling block to their advancement. And guess what?  That is exactly what the Constitution was written to do.

I’m sure you are aware that the hand gun is the weapon that is responsible for most deaths of any gun and the *assault rifle* is way down on the list, so why attack the *assault rifle*?  Is it because it is the optics?

Biden has said he wants to ban *assault rifles* and has yet done so, or even have the Democrats bring forth a bill to discuss.  That is when we shall see some ideas on the restrictions you talk about and to see if, in fact, they are reasonable.

[I_M4_AU 7,863]

13 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

You’re right. What I really need is a rog and a bazooka. I’ also might try mining the front yard.

Didn’t know you were that paranoid.

[auburnatl1 4,977]

One of things I accept is that the gun control topic instantly causes a personal, almost primal reaction for some.  I’ve witnessed it. But the founding fathers used friggin muskets. Machine guns were outlawed in the 30s. Imo  It’s time for a reasonable, people not losing their minds discussion about what people really need to hunt and feel safe - balanced with how to  minimize the casualties from undiagnosed people who snap.

 

.

[KansasTiger 3,248]

1 minute ago, auburnatl1 said:

One of things I accept is that the gun control topic instantly causes a personal, almost primal reaction for some.  I’ve witnessed it. But the founding fathers used friggin muskets. Machine guns were outlawed in the 30s. Imo  It’s time for a reasonable, people not losing their minds discussion about what people really need to hunt and feel safe - balanced with how to  minimize the casualties from undiagnosed people who snap.

 

.

Hunt and feel safe wasn't the intent of 2A. It's intent was to balance power between the people and the government. 

[auburnatl1 4,977]

3 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Hunt and feel safe wasn't the intent of 2A. It's intent was to balance power between the people and the government. 

I understand, but if it’s still minutemen militia logic  - then  we should have full access to military hardware.   No lines. A Javelin is about about $175k.  Imo That statement is only marginally sillier than needing large capacity magazines.

 

[KansasTiger 3,248]

4 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I understand, but if it’s still minutemen militia logic  - then  we should have full access to military hardware.   No lines. A Javelin is about about $175k.  Imo That statement is only marginally sillier than needing large capacity magazines.

 

If a protest mob shows up at my house, I want a high capacity magazine nearby. That's not as unfathomable of a situation as it used to be.

[auburnatl1 4,977]

Just now, KansasTiger said:

If a protest mob shows up at my house, I want a high capacity magazine nearby. That's not as unfathomable of a situation as it used to be.

I love a good rationalization. Well if that’s a real concern, consider going old school with a moat and burning oil.

[KansasTiger 3,248]

9 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I love a good rationalization. Well if that’s a real concern, consider going old school with a moat and burning oil.

I have considered more than you think.

[I_M4_AU 7,863]

45 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

how to  minimize the casualties from undiagnosed people who snap.

How do you propose to do this?

[KansasTiger 3,248]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

How do you propose to do this?

Obviously he wants to limit high capacity mags. And surely, the millions of high capacity mags in circulation won't be an issue at all.

[I_M4_AU 7,863]

Just now, KansasTiger said:

Obviously he wants to limit high capacity mags. And surely, the millions of high capacity mags in circulation won't be an issue at all.

Banning something that is already being used seems futile. 

[auburnatl1 4,977]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

How do you propose to do this?

I’ve already made my proposal.  Wide open to a better one.  A smart country compromises, sucks it up,  and solves hard problems. A dumb one whines and points fingers for over 20 years.

[KansasTiger 3,248]

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Banning something that is already being used seems futile. 

I'd be curious to know how many mass shooters utilized LCMs vs. How many just carried multiple guns. How many shots do mass shooters shoot on average? Would it make a difference?

3 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I’ve already made my proposal.  Wide open to a better one.  A smart country compromises, sucks it up,  and solves hard problems. A dumb one whines and points fingers for over 20 years.

I agree with @I_M4_AU, I don't think this solution actually changes anything. It certainly makes alot of people FEEL better. Yay, we at least did SOMETHING. That's the liberal approach to alot of issues these days. But there's so many holes, work arounds, and no way to remove the existing LCMs from society that could be easily obtained. 

I say station more armed and trained security in key places. My parent's church trains and arms their own security because of threats they get from local LGBT and leftists. They train weekly and have to qualify yearly with standards harder than the FBI uses. They haven't had many issues since they've instituted the policy.

[arein0 970]

18 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

My parent's church trains and arms their own security because of threats they get from local LGBT and leftists. They train weekly and have to qualify yearly with standards harder than the FBI uses. They haven't had many issues since they've instituted the policy.

IBLP?

[KansasTiger 3,248]

2 minutes ago, arein0 said:

IBLP?

I dont know what that is.

[arein0 970]

2 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

I dont know what that is.

Then no, and I don't want to bring attention to them.

[KansasTiger 3,248]

Just now, arein0 said:

Then no, and I don't want to bring attention to them.

We are traditional Latin mass catholics.