Three 3rd graders, three adults killed by shooter at Nashville elementary school

[icanthearyou 4,465]

5 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

But frankly, folks that pose their whole family with assault weapons in front of the Christmas tree aren’t exactly the picture of mental health, either.

What????

Celebrating the birth of Jesus and the ownership of the perfect killing machines,,, go together.

I suppose you think there is a better Christmas movie than Die Hard.

 

[DKW 86 7,493]

20 hours ago, Leftfield said:

In the meantime, stop acting like I and others don't give a damn about it. 

So, you want to take away law-abiding citizens' guns that they have already purchased legally? 

I see. That is going to be very problematic. And again, we need radical changes in mentally ill laws. 

Even with the laws we have on the books, the young trans lady bought 7 guns legally. THAT we can work on. 

But we have to get the Radically Different Mental health Laws passed first. 

[DKW 86 7,493]

On 3/28/2023 at 12:19 PM, icanthearyou said:

No.  Access to, and efficiency of, guns has obviously changed.

If I go dove hunting, I am restricted to three rounds.  Point being, we now have guns with capacity and fire rates that are good for nothing but efficiently, killing humans in mass.  Why is this allowed?

I honestly do not know why some PCG, Penis Compensation Guns, are sold, but I would guess it has to do with Penis Compensation like just about every other thing we do in this nation. PCTrucks, PCKnives, PCBassboats, etc.

[DKW 86 7,493]

19 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Yes, the shooter had no criminal record and was legally allowed to buy as many guns as they wanted. 

Apparently, his/her parents didn't think they should have guns because of his/her mental state but Tennessee (like most Conservative States) do not have Red Flag laws that could have stopped the shooter from buying them. 

And I am saying loud as I can we need Red Flag laws....Keep up please.

[DKW 86 7,493]

20 hours ago, AU9377 said:

There will still be criminals with illegal assault weapons.  There are too many to think that won't happen.  However, making them more difficult to obtain and illegal to sell will mean that people like the 19 year old kid in Uvalde, Texas and the young woman in Nashville won't have them in their hands.  They didn't have to find some dangerous guy in a drug cartel to obtain those guns.  They simply walked into Big Dan's Guns and Ammo and bought them.

Having more of them certainly doesn't make us any safer and the only way to have less of them is to stop allowing them to be sold. I don't plan to live where I have to strap on as though I'm living the real world version of The Living Dead every day.

Criminals can make bombs.  That doesn't mean we need to make buying explosives legal for everyone.

SO agree then that you want to punish those that did nothing wrong and will never do anything wrong, so that we MIGHT, keep those guns out of the hands of a very very few. 

As of 2018, there were an estimated 393 million civilian-owned firearms in the U.S., according to the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey, a government-backed global organization. As of 2020, there were about 20 million AR-15-style weapons in the country, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association.

Do you really think we will ever get the 20M back?

Should never have sold the damn things in the first place.
That was a bad mistake. But I do not think we can put the genie back in the bottle.
You can't simply deprive Americans of property. That would likely take a Constitutional Amendment and NEVER pass.

Go after the Mental Health Aspect first.
Increase liability around the guns. Make the owner liable for any financial claims from use of the gun.

That is doable IMHO. Confiscation? I do not see that as possible except in the Wokeist Areas of America. As soon as challenged, those laws would be overturned with this SCOTUS.

 

[DKW 86 7,493]

18 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Utterly moronic lie. Pure idiocy.

https://time.com/6260075/irs-87000-agents-republican-lie/

It took 5 months to get my tax refund last year because of staffing shortages. This isn’t 87k auditors. This is the kind of crazy lie they know their weak-minded base will lap up. Step away from the trough.

I got mine in three weeks. The 87K are to replace retiring IRS Staff. Please get to the reality. This is from House.gov

House Republicans Rescind Funding for 87,000 New IRS Agents

This legislation aims at reversing the funding that House Democrats authorized under the 117th Congress, which added 87,000 new agents to the IRS, increasing the frequency and ability for additional audits.Jan 9, 2023

[tomcat 571]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

So, you want to take away law-abiding citizens' guns that they have already purchased legally? 

I see. That is going to be very problematic. And again, we need radical changes in mentally ill laws. 

Even with the laws we have on the books, the young trans lady bought 7 guns legally. THAT we can work on. 

But we have to get the Radically Different Mental health Laws passed first. 

What laws? It’s easier to get and use a gun than it is to obtain and operate a motor vehicle.

[TexasTiger 13,235]

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

I got mine in three weeks. The 87K are to replace retiring IRS Staff. Please get to the reality. This is from House.gov

House Republicans Rescind Funding for 87,000 New IRS Agents

This legislation aims at reversing the funding that House Democrats authorized under the 117th Congress, which added 87,000 new agents to the IRS, increasing the frequency and ability for additional audits.Jan 9, 2023

Who runs House.gov?

Yes, replacing retiring staff and assuring the capacity to run needed audits. Tax cheats cost us all.

Congrats on your return. I assume it was electronic and perhaps uncomplicated.

[I_M4_AU 8,119]

1 hour ago, tomcat said:

What laws? It’s easier to get and use a gun than it is to obtain and operate a motor vehicle.

What would be the reason for that?  The government had to regulate the operation of a motor vehicle soon after their invention.  If the gun would have been invented after the formation of the government, I would guarantee it would have been highly regulated and, probably outlawed by now.

The 2nd Amendment is a right, driving a car is a privilege given to you by the government.  What the government giveth, the government can take away.

[TitanTiger 20,563]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

What would be the reason for that?  The government had to regulate the operation of a motor vehicle soon after their invention.  If the gun would have been invented after the formation of the government, I would guarantee it would have been highly regulated and, probably outlawed by now.

The 2nd Amendment is a right, driving a car is a privilege given to you by the government.  What the government giveth, the government can take away.

But again, it's not an unfettered right (in fact, none of our rights are) and was never intended to be.  There are all manner of arms that are either illegal for private citizens to own or the restrictions on them are so tight, it makes it difficult to effectively illegal.  The same amendment that says the right to arms shall not be infringed also says so in the context of it being "well-regulated." 

[TexasTiger 13,235]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But again, it's not an unfettered right (in fact, none of our rights are) and was never intended to be.  There are all manner of arms that are either illegal for private citizens to own or the restrictions on them are so tight, it makes it difficult to effectively illegal.  The same amendment that says the right to arms shall not be infringed also says so in the context of it being "well-regulated." 

And even in the context of a “well-regulated militia,” which would appear far more limiting than these jurists who claim to follow that actual language of the Constitution seem to think.

[tomcat 571]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

What would be the reason for that?  The government had to regulate the operation of a motor vehicle soon after their invention.  If the gun would have been invented after the formation of the government, I would guarantee it would have been highly regulated and, probably outlawed by now.

The 2nd Amendment is a right, driving a car is a privilege given to you by the government.  What the government giveth, the government can take away.

Perhaps we should consider what works and what does not work. The 2nd Amendment works in that the right to own and carry a gun is for damn sure not abridged. While written just as plainly, go ahead and cross out that “well regulated militia” part. No one pays that any mind. What is not working is wanton mass murder on an almost daily basis. Sadly for those believing the 2nd Amendment is carved in stone…to often it is a headstone…of a child murdered in school.

[I_M4_AU 8,119]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But again, it's not an unfettered right (in fact, none of our rights are) and was never intended to be.  There are all manner of arms that are either illegal for private citizens to own or the restrictions on them are so tight, it makes it difficult to effectively illegal.  The same amendment that says the right to arms shall not be infringed also says so in the context of it being "well-regulated." 

I never said it was, however, being a RIGHT is it a lot less likely the government can treat gun ownership as a privilege.  The phrase *well-regulated* is now coming under scrutiny because it is the only squishy language the left has zeroed in on.  Is the Constitution a living document or interpreted as written?

Wouldn’t it nice to find a solution to this problem without taking a RIGHT away law abiding citizens.

[I_M4_AU 8,119]

4 minutes ago, tomcat said:

Perhaps we should consider what works and what does not work. The 2nd Amendment works in that the right to own and carry a gun is for damn sure not abridged. While written just as plainly, go ahead and cross out that “well regulated militia” part. No one pays that any mind. What is not working is wanton mass murder on an almost daily basis. Sadly for those believing the 2nd Amendment is carved in stone…to often it is a headstone…of a child murdered in school.

Oh, please.  There are evil people in the world, if we restrict defenses for good people what deterrent does that leave for evil people?

[tomcat 571]

4 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

I honestly do not know why some PCG, Penis Compensation Guns, are sold, but I would guess it has to do with Penis Compensation like just about every other thing we do in this nation. PCTrucks, PCKnives, PCBassboats, etc.

LOL…my next door neighbor bought a new truck. When he got it home he was surprised it would not fit in the garage. He named it …”The Compensator”!

[TitanTiger 20,563]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I never said it was, however, being a RIGHT is it a lot less likely the government can treat gun ownership as a privilege.  The phrase *well-regulated* is now coming under scrutiny because it is the only squishy language the left has zeroed in on.  Is the Constitution a living document or interpreted as written?

Wouldn’t it nice to find a solution to this problem without taking a RIGHT away law abiding citizens.

I take issue with the term "squishy" as if it some liberal plot to disarm America.  The Founders put that language in, not 21st century Peace 'n Love flower children.  It seems even they thought of this right in the context of there being some reasonable regulations and restrictions on this right.  They didn't want a disarmed populus, but neither do I think they wanted what we're seeing now.  Had weaponry on the level of the AR-15 and similar firearms existed at the time, they might have been even more explicit about it.  But as written, the Constitution seems to be saying this is a right that is subject to regulation (not abolishment) by the government.

[tomcat 571]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Oh, please.  There are evil people in the world, if we restrict defenses for good people what deterrent does that leave for evil people?

That sums it up….you need a gun to protect yourself from an idiot with a gun. 🤔

[TitanTiger 20,563]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Oh, please.  There are evil people in the world, if we restrict defenses for good people what deterrent does that leave for evil people?

Because we can't predict or read minds on who is evil or will be evil in the future.  So we have restrictions, regulations and such on certain things.  We don't just not allow you to own your own suitcase nuke because you might not have the expertise to handle it properly and you could accidentally contaminate your neighborhood with radiation or blow it to smithereens by accident.  It's because 1) we don't know what any person might do under the right set of pressures, circumstances and emotional state and 2) if we let the so-called "good people" have access to them, then the evil people we don't yet know are evil get easier access to them too.

So we restrict access to certain classes of weapons and arms for EVERYONE.  You can't own a fully operational Abrams class tank for instance.  You can't possess certain types of explosives and explosive devices.  Why is it such a stretch to say that certain classes of firearms shouldn't be so easy to obtain for most people?

[Leftfield 2,758]

4 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

So, you want to take away law-abiding citizens' guns that they have already purchased legally? 

Please point to where I said that?

You just love putting words in people's mouths, don't you.

And while literally everyone here agrees mental health laws and issues need to be addressed (so what's the point of you harping on it?), I don't understand why that necessarily has to be done before outlawing assault weapons. 

 

[Leftfield 2,758]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

The government had to regulate the operation of a motor vehicle soon after their invention.  If the gun would have been invented after the formation of the government, I would guarantee it would have been highly regulated and, probably outlawed by now.

Honestly can't believe you just said the quiet part out loud. This is stunning to me.

You're admitting that because the leaders of the 18th century enshrined something as a right, that right should never be rescinded, no matter how much different things may be in the future. "Dammit, it doesn't matter if making a change makes things better, it should stay in place based solely on the virtue of it being a right!"

This despite the fact the framers of our Constitution left mechanisms in place to change it when needed. In all their wisdom they knew they couldn't foresee the future, so they left it to us to govern responsibly in our own time, and certainly with this issue we're failing miserably.

The manufacture and sale of alcohol was banned at one point, but by God we simply can't even consider banning the manufacture and sale of a style of gun nobody needs! 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Leftfield

[CoffeeTiger 5,270]

4 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

I got mine in three weeks. The 87K are to replace retiring IRS Staff. Please get to the reality. This is from House.gov

House Republicans Rescind Funding for 87,000 New IRS Agents

This legislation aims at reversing the funding that House Democrats authorized under the 117th Congress, which added 87,000 new agents to the IRS, increasing the frequency and ability for additional audits.Jan 9, 2023

 

Do you have the link where you got this? 

When I google this quote it only pops up this  https://lamborn.house.gov/media/press-releases/house-republicans-rescind-funding-87000-new-irs-agents 

And this is simply a press release/media statement from Colorado House Republican Doug Lamborn and NOT an official government statement or factual assessment. 

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2023 by CoffeeTiger

[Mikey 16,779]

20 hours ago, homersapien said:

Man you are ignorant as hell.  The perfect MAGA Republican.

Thanks. Better that then an anti-American who voted for Bungling Biden. I actually prefer America First as a slogan but MAGA is acceptable.

Are you saying that the criminally misnomered Inflation Reduction Act does NOT provide $80 billion in increased funding for the IRS?

[Mikey 16,779]

22 hours ago, AU9377 said:

What if she had not been armed with those particular weapons?  It would have taken her several shots just to get the glass to break and for her to reach inside and open the doors.  That small amount of time would have likely given that janitor enough time to sound the alarm or run to the second floor and tell someone. 

As it is, she was capable of spraying bullets and quickly getting thru the doors and be on her way.

She had a semi-auto weapon. It is not capable of spraying bullets. It fires one shot at a time. The same rate of fire could have been obtained by any semi-auto handgun or rifle.

[TitanTiger 20,563]

7 minutes ago, Mikey said:

She had a semi-auto weapon. It is not capable of spraying bullets. It fires one shot at a time. The same rate of fire could have been obtained by any semi-auto handgun or rifle.

You're oversimplifying.

You can fire very rapidly with this type of weapon, with a level of accuracy, projectile velocity, and damage inflicted that handguns and normal rifles can't match.  And the size of the magazine matters.  Most of these come standard with a 30 round magazine and getting larger ones that hold 40, 50 or even 100 aren't hard to find.  The ability to keep firing without stopping to reload matters. 

On average, a person can empty a 100-round drum magazine in about 30 seconds.  In that same 30 seconds you could empty and reload a 10-round magazine three times, on average.  That's 30 bullets vs 100 in the same time span.  Effectively, it is "spraying" and at a rate those other firearms simply cannot match.

Those precious 8-10 seconds between emptying, ejecting, grabbing a new magazine, clicking it in place and firing again gives people time to either flee the area, get to a more secure place, or even charge and disable the shooter.

[icanthearyou 4,465]

I need my assualt rifle in order to feel secure from the criminal element.

I do not support IRS enforcement because I should be able to cheat on my taxes without anxiety.