|
Post by mollycoddle on Jun 14, 2016 22:24:41 GMT
How is it separate from what happened in Orlando when it is the reason. Yes gun control and terrorism is different which is why I'm curious why we are not talking about terrorist control when we are discussing a terrorist act? I support and agree with gun control. What I'm curious about is when terrorism hits the US the talk turns to gun control instead of terrorism. When terrorism hits other countries the talk is about terrorism. Why the double standard. When the discussion is turned away from the terrorist and into gun control it places the blame on the people and laws of the US and away from the terrorist and his actions. Because at the heart, even terrorism itself is considered a result of the US. There is nothing right about our country. Our forefathers were prejudiced. Their laws are prejudicial and need to be changed. We are a cruel, callous, wealthy people who care only about our own interests to the detriment of the rest of the world. Sound crazy? Really think about what I said. Check out the headlines on any given day. Listen to the political parties - especially the Democrat Party. Count how many times the US is painted negatively versus how many times it is painted positively and the result may surprise you. I disagree. I would say that most people mean well. Because some people do not mean well, our laws must be carefully made more explicit, more inclusive, more logical. Banning assault weapons again would be a good start.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 16, 2024 12:09:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 22:49:11 GMT
How is it separate from what happened in Orlando when it is the reason. Yes gun control and terrorism is different which is why I'm curious why we are not talking about terrorist control when we are discussing a terrorist act? I support and agree with gun control. What I'm curious about is when terrorism hits the US the talk turns to gun control instead of terrorism. When terrorism hits other countries the talk is about terrorism. Why the double standard. When the discussion is turned away from the terrorist and into gun control it places the blame on the people and laws of the US and away from the terrorist and his actions. Because at the heart, even terrorism itself is considered a result of the US. There is nothing right about our country. Our forefathers were prejudiced. Their laws are prejudicial and need to be changed. We are a cruel, callous, wealthy people who care only about our own interests to the detriment of the rest of the world. Sound crazy? Really think about what I said. Check out the headlines on any given day. Listen to the political parties - especially the Democrat Party. Count how many times the US is painted negatively versus how many times it is painted positively and the result may surprise you. ![:shocked:](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/JvSt42CUoZ9LG952aAaF.jpg) I just don't agree. With any of that or that political parties are saying those specific things. I think it's possible to love this country and still acknowledge our past + current mistakes and try to do better. It's not so black and white, and it makes me sad that this is anyone's perception.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jun 14, 2016 23:32:09 GMT
There is nothing right about our country. Our forefathers were prejudiced. Their laws are prejudicial and need to be changed. Well, many of our forefathers WERE prejudiced. They were a reflection of the society in which they lived. I'd assume we'd all agree to this, and agree that some egregious laws that needed to be changed were changed (miscegenation, women's suffrage, civil rights, sodomy). But fixing those laws doesn't mean there's nothing right about our country. Many other countries have made similar changes. (If this is in context of the gun control question, I don't think anybody thinks our forefathers were prejudiced when they wrote the second ammendment. I think they either believe that the intention was an armed (official) militia or that our forefathers couldn't possibly have anticipated gun ownership as it relates to the world we live in now.)
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 15, 2016 1:57:20 GMT
Because at the heart, even terrorism itself is considered a result of the US. There is nothing right about our country. Our forefathers were prejudiced. Their laws are prejudicial and need to be changed. We are a cruel, callous, wealthy people who care only about our own interests to the detriment of the rest of the world. Sound crazy? Really think about what I said. Check out the headlines on any given day. Listen to the political parties - especially the Democrat Party. Count how many times the US is painted negatively versus how many times it is painted positively and the result may surprise you. I disagree. I would say that most people mean well. Because some people do not mean well, our laws must be carefully made more explicit, more inclusive, more logical. Banning assault weapons again would be a good start. Most people do mean well, I absolutely agree with you. BUT.... There is a blatant lie right there in your own words. And no matter how well or how often this is explained, the lies continue unabated. What people who perpetuate these great-sounding yet blatantly incorrect misterms don't understand is that because they absolutely.refuse!! to understand exactly what it is that they are referring to, they are in reality referring to a whole lot of weapons that they don't think they are referring to. It makes a difference. When it comes time to ban a particular weapon or a particular ability of a weapon, precise language matters. The ban that we had most recently included any long-gun with an adjustable stock. In other words, a "handle" that rests against your shoulder may be made longer or shorter so it will fit people of different sizes. That aspect of a weapon has absolutely no influence on how lethal it is. It is completely inconsequential to how quickly x amount of ammunition may be fired in y amount of time. Yet it was considered of supreme importance before. Here's the thing. Weapons with adjustable stocks are typically those that we have been taught LOOK more terrifying. They aren't even "assault rifles," as you have called them. They aren't automatic rifles, either, as I heard Bernie Sanders call them several months ago and which is a particular characterization that is equally misused throughout people who are OUTRAGED! in general. So, what exactly is the wording that is going to make all the difference in our laws Hallelujah Amen! ? The banning of assault rifles to the general population. Already done. The rebanning of rifles with adjustable stocks? Useless. Very, Very, Very, Very few people who are so outraged that WE.MUST.DO.SOMETHING.TODAY!!!!! take the time to actually learn exactly what they are referring to. That makes them sound like extreme alarmists who do nothing but parrot the nonsensical ramblings of what someone else says. They will go along with whatever laws some wannabe-hero-in-the-making says will make ALL.THE.DIFFERENCE, Hallelujah Amen! without understanding whether that language is ANY different from the laws we already have in place today, whether that language regulates aspects of a weapon that don't need to be regulated, or whether that language refers to a much broader range of weapons than they realize and includes weapons that they don't want to see banned. To people who are intimate with these terms, these things matter deeply. It is precisely the way rights are slipped away from a people who are unaware. To make fun of this ever-present danger, as has been done on this very thread, is a dangerous naivete that has led to the downfall of free people within remembered history. I don't know what new laws are the answer to an armed man who calls 911 in the middle of his killing spree to dedicate these killings to Isis. A stiffening of the background checks? This idea which is proposed by many of the same people who are so appalled at the idea of having to show a valid photo ID in order to vote. Regulating health officials to put patients on no-sell lists when the same proponents think that scanning social media for dangerous extremists is an invasion of privacy? At some point, these double standards must start dawning in people's understanding of what it is that they are demanding or they are only going to further pound that wedge between them and the people who do see them. Anyone posting on these threads knows without hesitation how accepted it is to downplay links or quotes from "that vast, radical, right-wing conspiratorial media," yet somehow, people appear bewildered when people who do know weapons and who are truly concerned with maintaining a free society discount them when they parrot incorrect and useless jargon. You, mollycoddle, are a good person. You are reasonable, you are caring, your heart hurts with good cause. Do you want your thoughts to be discounted because you refer to these civilian weapons with a term that is reserved for those used by the military alone? Does anyone? How can new laws be passed this way? Laws are specific, not general. You can't just write a law to ban/regulate/confiscate "these guns in this picture on the news." That's not the way our laws are meant to be created. Writing laws to ban weapons that can fire x amount of ammunition in y amount of time only accomplishes so much. Less "evil" weapons can be used which will create the same threat - or worse. Far worse is actually possible. Serious lawmakers that have dedicated themselves to learn about specific weapons, specific laws already on our books, and the actual implementation of these laws already on our books must come together with the sole purpose of finding the loopholes in these laws and their implementation before they can create any new laws of significance that a) may (and only possibly) affect the incidence of these shootings and b) not give government powers to enslave us and/or restrict our actual freedom. I'd like to see people start posting a call for this kind of council.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 15, 2016 2:08:07 GMT
Because at the heart, even terrorism itself is considered a result of the US. There is nothing right about our country. Our forefathers were prejudiced. Their laws are prejudicial and need to be changed. We are a cruel, callous, wealthy people who care only about our own interests to the detriment of the rest of the world. Sound crazy? Really think about what I said. Check out the headlines on any given day. Listen to the political parties - especially the Democrat Party. Count how many times the US is painted negatively versus how many times it is painted positively and the result may surprise you. ![:shocked:](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/JvSt42CUoZ9LG952aAaF.jpg) I just don't agree. With any of that or that political parties are saying those specific things. I think it's possible to love this country and still acknowledge our past + current mistakes and try to do better. It's not so black and white, and it makes me sad that this is anyone's perception. Is this what people think that they are saying? No. Is it what they are saying by the actual words that they choose to say? More often than you would assume. And this is what needs to be better understood. Approximately half of the country is actually aware of these word choices. They are paying attention and the message they are receiving is very clearly one of people who hate America.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jun 15, 2016 2:14:18 GMT
I read on People.com that this terrorist's wife told authorities he had scouted out Disney Springs (formerly Downtown Disney) as a potential target as well as the nightclub. Why didn't she alert the FBI? She had to have known what he was up to if she told police he was scouting targets. Link to articleBut would that have changed anything--an ex co-worker of his complained repeatedly about his hate filled rantings and nothing was done. I have not wanted to participate in any of the arguments taking place in this thread. But I can't let this statement pass unchallenged. It's completely incorrect that "nothing was done." The shooter was heavily investigated and under FBI surveillance for months. They determined that he was a bit unbalanced, but not a terrorist, which was where their only concern lay. And as it happens, more and more evidence is surfacing that shows him to be, yes, a whack job, perhaps a self-loathing closeted homosexual ... someone who may have claimed the mantle of jihad to excuse his rage, but who couldn't even decide which terrorist group to claim as his own, let alone actually interact with any of them. So please don't say "nothing was done" ... he may have slipped through the cracks, but he was definitely investigated and he just didn't fit the usual terrorist suspect profile.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jun 15, 2016 2:15:21 GMT
I disagree. I would say that most people mean well. Because some people do not mean well, our laws must be carefully made more explicit, more inclusive, more logical. Banning assault weapons again would be a good start. Most people do mean well, I absolutely agree with you. BUT.... There is a blatant lie right there in your own words. And no matter how well or how often this is explained, the lies continue unabated. What people who perpetuate these great-sounding yet blatantly incorrect misterms don't understand is that because they absolutely.refuse!! to understand exactly what it is that they are referring to, they are in reality referring to a whole lot of weapons that they don't think they are referring to. It makes a difference. When it comes time to ban a particular weapon or a particular ability of a weapon, precise language matters. The ban that we had most recently included any long-gun with an adjustable stock. In other words, a "handle" that rests against your shoulder may be made longer or shorter so it will fit people of different sizes. That aspect of a weapon has absolutely no influence on how lethal it is. It is completely inconsequential to how quickly x amount of ammunition may be fired in y amount of time. Yet it was considered of supreme importance before. Here's the thing. Weapons with adjustable stocks are typically those that we have been taught LOOK more terrifying. They aren't even "assault rifles," as you have called them. They aren't automatic rifles, either, as I heard Bernie Sanders call them several months ago and which is a particular characterization that is equally misused throughout people who are OUTRAGED! in general. So, what exactly is the wording that is going to make all the difference in our laws Hallelujah Amen! ? The banning of assault rifles to the general population. Already done. The rebanning of rifles with adjustable stocks? Useless. Very, Very, Very, Very few people who are so outraged that WE.MUST.DO.SOMETHING.TODAY!!!!! take the time to actually learn exactly what they are referring to. That makes them sound like extreme alarmists who do nothing but parrot the nonsensical ramblings of what someone else says. They will go along with whatever laws some wannabe-hero-in-the-making says will make ALL.THE.DIFFERENCE, Hallelujah Amen! without understanding whether that language is ANY different from the laws we already have in place today, whether that language regulates aspects of a weapon that don't need to be regulated, or whether that language refers to a much broader range of weapons than they realize and includes weapons that they don't want to see banned. To people who are intimate with these terms, these things matter deeply. It is precisely the way rights are slipped away from a people who are unaware. To make fun of this ever-present danger, as has been done on this very thread, is a dangerous naivete that has led to the downfall of free people within remembered history. I don't know what new laws are the answer to an armed man who calls 911 in the middle of his killing spree to dedicate these killings to Isis. A stiffening of the background checks? This idea which is proposed by many of the same people who are so appalled at the idea of having to show a valid photo ID in order to vote. Regulating health officials to put patients on no-sell lists when the same proponents think that scanning social media for dangerous extremists is an invasion of privacy? At some point, these double standards must start dawning in people's understanding of what it is that they are demanding or they are only going to further pound that wedge between them and the people who do see them. Anyone posting on these threads knows without hesitation how accepted it is to downplay links or quotes from "that vast, radical, right-wing conspiratorial media," yet somehow, people appear bewildered when people who do know weapons and who are truly concerned with maintaining a free society discount them when they parrot incorrect and useless jargon. You, mollycoddle, are a good person. You are reasonable, you are caring, your heart hurts with good cause. Do you want your thoughts to be discounted because you refer to these civilian weapons with a term that is reserved for those used by the military alone? Does anyone? How can new laws be passed this way? Laws are specific, not general. You can't just write a law to ban/regulate/confiscate "these guns in this picture on the news." That's not the way our laws are meant to be created. Writing laws to ban weapons that can fire x amount of ammunition in y amount of time only accomplishes so much. Less "evil" weapons can be used which will create the same threat - or worse. Far worse is actually possible. Serious lawmakers that have dedicated themselves to learn about specific weapons, specific laws already on our books, and the actual implementation of these laws already on our books must come together with the sole purpose of finding the loopholes in these laws and their implementation before they can create any new laws of significance that a) may (and only possibly) affect the incidence of these shootings and b) not give government powers to enslave us and/or restrict our actual freedom. I'd like to see people start posting a call for this kind of council. You know, I am aware of the fuzziness of the term "assault weapon" and cringe along with you when I see or hear it, because I agree with you that in making laws to help keep people safe, we need to be very precise. I also think, however, that some gun rights folks fixate on the fuzziness of the term to avoid having a hard conversation about what it means that almost anyone, regardless of background, training, mental health status or anything else, can walk into a store and walk out with a weapon that allows them to fire hundreds of rounds in a minute or two.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jun 15, 2016 2:19:15 GMT
![:shocked:](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/JvSt42CUoZ9LG952aAaF.jpg) I just don't agree. With any of that or that political parties are saying those specific things. I think it's possible to love this country and still acknowledge our past + current mistakes and try to do better. It's not so black and white, and it makes me sad that this is anyone's perception. Is this what people think that they are saying? No. Is it what they are saying by the actual words that they choose to say? More often than you would assume. And this is what needs to be better understood. Approximately half of the country is actually aware of these word choices. They are paying attention and the message they are receiving is very clearly one of people who hate America. Can you be specific about the word choices you mean? Also, why the Democrat party instead of the Democratic one? I've always understood that particular word choice to be a derogatory way of referring to the party on the left. www.factcheck.org/2007/12/the-democratic-or-democrat-party/
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 16, 2024 12:09:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2016 2:23:43 GMT
![:shocked:](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/JvSt42CUoZ9LG952aAaF.jpg) I just don't agree. With any of that or that political parties are saying those specific things. I think it's possible to love this country and still acknowledge our past + current mistakes and try to do better. It's not so black and white, and it makes me sad that this is anyone's perception. Is this what people think that they are saying? No. Is it what they are saying by the actual words that they choose to say? More often than you would assume. And this is what needs to be better understood. Approximately half of the country is actually aware of these word choices. They are paying attention and the message they are receiving is very clearly one of people who hate America. ![:(](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/mYSUyHtG9Jrcmm_ydVcK.jpg) I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, because I think a lot of the 'message' that 'approximately half the country is receiving' is being seriously misinterpreted. Some of it, I think, is genuine misunderstanding, and some of it is very deliberate and purposely obtuse misinterpretation. You, leftturnonly have been reasonable and kind enough to explain your views and listen to those of others that disagree with with you without drama and histrionics, so I in no way think you are in that deliberate and purposely obtuse misinterpreting group.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 15, 2016 2:25:48 GMT
There is nothing right about our country. Our forefathers were prejudiced. Their laws are prejudicial and need to be changed. Well, many of our forefathers WERE prejudiced. They were a reflection of the society in which they lived. I'd assume we'd all agree to this, and agree that some egregious laws that needed to be changed were changed (miscegenation, women's suffrage, civil rights, sodomy). But fixing those laws doesn't mean there's nothing right about our country. Many other countries have made similar changes. (If this is in context of the gun control question, I don't think anybody thinks our forefathers were prejudiced when they wrote the second ammendment. I think they either believe that the intention was an armed (official) militia or that our forefathers couldn't possibly have anticipated gun ownership as it relates to the world we live in now.) IDK, Amelia. I really, just don't know. Slavery ended. That was the right thing. It became legal for women to vote. That was the right thing. Our civil laws are steadily expanding to include people of all races, color, ability, religion and sexual orientation. That is the right thing. But the ability to defend oneself is paramount to being free. The recognition that absolute power corrupts absolutely and must at all times be watched, checked and able to be thrown out is the only thing that keeps free people free. Otherwise, people remain free sheerly through luck and circumstance. Absolute power is also that which is taken by those who are criminals. Our criminals of today do not rely on the weapons of our forebearers. They use sophisticated computerized methods of communication with weapons funded by an astronomical combination of illegal drugs, illegal sex trade, illegal smuggling, the stolen control of physical assets such as oil, etc, and they are beyond ruthless. Simple 22 handguns don't seem like much of a personal safeguard in a world with these very real and present dangers. Neither do crossbows, hatchets and muzzleloading rifles.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 15, 2016 2:42:35 GMT
Regardless of any side or propaganda, there is no reason that individuals should be able to own guns that are marketed as military grade-combat-assault type weapons.. (Per gun advertisements).
No reason.
Bars, schools, malls are not battlefields. Party goers, school children, shoppers are not enemy combatants.
The AR15 has been used/chosen in these mass shooting because of the amount of damage on can do in a short time. (Adam Lanza shot 145 rounds in 5 minutes).
People using these military/combat types of weapons are not required to have any training on them whatsoever. In some states, 16 yr olds can legally obtain these weapons.
People can argue that if you don't know what type of gun is what (many here have just used words/phrases from what they have heard or read in the media) but it boils down to this-- no civilian needs to have military-combat-assault-rapid-type weapons.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 15, 2016 2:48:13 GMT
Is this what people think that they are saying? No. Is it what they are saying by the actual words that they choose to say? More often than you would assume. And this is what needs to be better understood. Approximately half of the country is actually aware of these word choices. They are paying attention and the message they are receiving is very clearly one of people who hate America. Can you be specific about the word choices you mean? Also, why the Democrat party instead of the Democratic one? I've always understood that particular word choice to be a derogatory way of referring to the party on the left. www.factcheck.org/2007/12/the-democratic-or-democrat-party/I try to get it right, but I never remember. Democrat/Democratic party. The difference just doesn't stick in my brain for some reason. It's just an annoying quirk of my memory. I'm not trying to blow you off here and not give you a specific list of words. I think that's actually a very fair thing to ask. But I'm mentally beat right now. It's been an extremely emotional several days and I don't have it in me to think that specifically. Just know that this is something I've been sensitive to for a good many years, so it's not an off-the-cuff remark. I just don't have a ready-made list to give you.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jun 15, 2016 3:11:40 GMT
Regardless of any side or propaganda, there is no reason that individuals should be able to own guns that are marketed as military grade-combat-assault type weapons.. (Per gun advertisements). No reason. Bars, schools, malls are not battlefields. Party goers, school children, shoppers are not enemy combatants. The AR15 has been used/chosen in these mass shooting because of the amount of damage on can do in a short time. (Adam Lanza shot 145 rounds in 5 minutes). People using these military/combat types of weapons are not required to have any training on them whatsoever. In some states, 16 yr olds can legally obtain these weapons. People can argue that if you don't know what type of gun is what (many here have just used words/phrases from what they have heard or read in the media) but it boils down to this-- no civilian needs to have military-combat-assault-rapid-type weapons. You don't get to decide for me what I need.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jun 15, 2016 3:37:37 GMT
I try to get it right, but I never remember. Democrat/Democratic party. The difference just doesn't stick in my brain for some reason. It's just an annoying quirk of my memory. I'm not trying to blow you off here and not give you a specific list of words. I think that's actually a very fair thing to ask. But I'm mentally beat right now. It's been an extremely emotional several days and I don't have it in me to think that specifically. Just know that this is something I've been sensitive to for a good many years, so it's not an off-the-cuff remark. I just don't have a ready-made list to give you. Understandable. Take care of yourself.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jun 15, 2016 9:44:45 GMT
I disagree. I would say that most people mean well. Because some people do not mean well, our laws must be carefully made more explicit, more inclusive, more logical. Banning assault weapons again would be a good start. Most people do mean well, I absolutely agree with you. BUT.... There is a blatant lie right there in your own words. And no matter how well or how often this is explained, the lies continue unabated. What people who perpetuate these great-sounding yet blatantly incorrect misterms don't understand is that because they absolutely.refuse!! to understand exactly what it is that they are referring to, they are in reality referring to a whole lot of weapons that they don't think they are referring to. It makes a difference. When it comes time to ban a particular weapon or a particular ability of a weapon, precise language matters. The ban that we had most recently included any long-gun with an adjustable stock. In other words, a "handle" that rests against your shoulder may be made longer or shorter so it will fit people of different sizes. That aspect of a weapon has absolutely no influence on how lethal it is. It is completely inconsequential to how quickly x amount of ammunition may be fired in y amount of time. Yet it was considered of supreme importance before. Here's the thing. Weapons with adjustable stocks are typically those that we have been taught LOOK more terrifying. They aren't even "assault rifles," as you have called them. They aren't automatic rifles, either, as I heard Bernie Sanders call them several months ago and which is a particular characterization that is equally misused throughout people who are OUTRAGED! in general. So, what exactly is the wording that is going to make all the difference in our laws Hallelujah Amen! ? The banning of assault rifles to the general population. Already done. The rebanning of rifles with adjustable stocks? Useless. " Very, Very, Very, Very few people who are so outraged that WE.MUST.DO.SOMETHING.TODAY!!!!! take the time to actually learn exactly what they are referring to. That makes them sound like extreme alarmists who do nothing but parrot the nonsensical ramblings of what someone else says. They will go along with whatever laws some wannabe-hero-in-the-making says will make ALL.THE.DIFFERENCE, Hallelujah Amen! without understanding whether that language is ANY different from the laws we already have in place today, whether that language regulates aspects of a weapon that don't need to be regulated, or whether that language refers to a much broader range of weapons than they realize and includes weapons that they don't want to see banned. To people who are intimate with these terms, these things matter deeply. It is precisely the way rights are slipped away from a people who are unaware. To make fun of this ever-present danger, as has been done on this very thread, is a dangerous naivete that has led to the downfall of free people within remembered history. I don't know what new laws are the answer to an armed man who calls 911 in the middle of his killing spree to dedicate these killings to Isis. A stiffening of the background checks? This idea which is proposed by many of the same people who are so appalled at the idea of having to show a valid photo ID in order to vote. Regulating health officials to put patients on no-sell lists when the same proponents think that scanning social media for dangerous extremists is an invasion of privacy? At some point, these double standards must start dawning in people's understanding of what it is that they are demanding or they are only going to further pound that wedge between them and the people who do see them. Anyone posting on these threads knows without hesitation how accepted it is to downplay links or quotes from "that vast, radical, right-wing conspiratorial media," yet somehow, people appear bewildered when people who do know weapons and who are truly concerned with maintaining a free society discount them when they parrot incorrect and useless jargon. You, mollycoddle, are a good person. You are reasonable, you are caring, your heart hurts with good cause. Do you want your thoughts to be discounted because you refer to these civilian weapons with a term that is reserved for those used by the military alone? Does anyone? How can new laws be passed this way? Laws are specific, not general. You can't just write a law to ban/regulate/confiscate "these guns in this picture on the news." That's not the way our laws are meant to be created. Writing laws to ban weapons that can fire x amount of ammunition in y amount of time only accomplishes so much. Less "evil" weapons can be used which will create the same threat - or worse. Far worse is actually possible. Serious lawmakers that have dedicated themselves to learn about specific weapons, specific laws already on our books, and the actual implementation of these laws already on our books must come together with the sole purpose of finding the loopholes in these laws and their implementation before they can create any new laws of significance that a) may (and only possibly) affect the incidence of these shootings and b) not give government powers to enslave us and/or restrict our actual freedom. I'd like to see people start posting a call for this kind of council. You make some valid points. I am neither a gun person nor a lawmaker. I do know that in some states at least, a gun like that used in Orlando can be purchased in less than an hour. I did some reading, and it seems that these types of guns were originally developed for the military. This is just a media report, but it covers some of these types of guns: www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mass-shootings-weapons-ar-15_us_575ec6b7e4b00f97fba8de0e?4vb5s8rg13fk1emi=I have to think that one place to start is to do away with same-day purchases. I specifically agree with what you said here: "Serious lawmakers that have dedicated themselves to learn about specific weapons, specific laws already on our books, and the actual implementation of these laws already on our books must come together with the sole purpose of finding the loopholes in these laws and their implementation before they can create any new laws of significance that a) may (and only possibly) affect the incidence of these shootings and b) not give government powers to enslave us and/or restrict our actual freedom. I'd like to see people start posting a call for this kind of council." I don't pretend to have the answers, and I am not in favor of reflexively passing laws. I think that a lot of thought needs to go into any laws that are passed, so that they are useful and effective. It troubles me that the shooter was investigated by the FBI and they didn't find anything. I am just as troubled by the fact that his teachers knew that there would be a problem someday. I've dealt with kids like that too. I would like to see more effective counseling services available to children. That would help. Other than that, I don't have the answers. But clearly we have a problem. Ignoring it is just not an option.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jun 15, 2016 9:50:06 GMT
[snip] But the ability to defend oneself is paramount to being free. The recognition that absolute power corrupts absolutely and must at all times be watched, checked and able to be thrown out is the only thing that keeps free people free. Otherwise, people remain free sheerly through luck and circumstance.. I've written this before here and I'm being genuine, not snarky: It wasn't until I started hanging out here that I realized there are Americans who believe we should be constantly on the watch - at the ready to physically wrest back control from a tyrannical government. My perspective and education are so different: I view the American Revolution as a moment in time - a significant moment, yes, but something that was a conduit to a government of checks and balances - not something that most people believe could/would be repeated. For me, the idea of citizen vigilance takes other forms. What you describe as an everyday guiding principle is something I mostly associate with you because I learned about it from your posts here - but it's a big country, so I really have no sense how prevalent the thinking is, just that it genuinely surprised me. It's not a conversation I would have in my non-internet world. (Hell, it's not even a conversation I had in the three years I lived in Texas!) When I consider the thinking, which I truly have, one of my "Yeah, but"s is that there are more than 100 free countries in the world. Many of them have far fewer guns than we do, and far more restrictions for ownership. In these countries, there doesn't seem to be a feeling that the vigilance necessary to remain free includes an armed populace...or that they remain free only through luck. I'd be interested to hear what any international members here think of the idea (...but I suspect they've fled this thread... ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/OrTI4SBmZ2ZYSFv6ag4f.jpg) ).
|
|
|
Post by gar on Jun 15, 2016 10:39:05 GMT
When I consider the thinking, which I truly have, one of my "Yeah, but"s is that there are more than 100 free countries in the world. Many of them have far fewer guns than we do, and far more restrictions for ownership. In these countries, there doesn't seem to be a feeling that the vigilance necessary to remain free includes an armed populace...or that they remain free only through luck. I'd be interested to hear what any international members here think of the idea (...but I suspect they've fled this thread... ![:P](http://i62.tinypic.com/2lu3meu.jpg) ) As an international Pea I have always found that thought to be something very alien and so far removed from my thinking but I could only assume that was just because of the way your nation was formed, your history etc. I took it that it was something I would never identify with and could never really empathise with because it just wasn't in my psyche. It's interesting that it's not universal ![](https://media.fotki.com/2v2JGmVoCxA5eGL.gif) I certainly have zero concern that we ought to have armed members of the general public in case the government turned on us. It's just not going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 15, 2016 14:33:46 GMT
Regardless of any side or propaganda, there is no reason that individuals should be able to own guns that are marketed as military grade-combat-assault type weapons.. (Per gun advertisements). No reason. Bars, schools, malls are not battlefields. Party goers, school children, shoppers are not enemy combatants. The AR15 has been used/chosen in these mass shooting because of the amount of damage on can do in a short time. (Adam Lanza shot 145 rounds in 5 minutes). People using these military/combat types of weapons are not required to have any training on them whatsoever. In some states, 16 yr olds can legally obtain these weapons. People can argue that if you don't know what type of gun is what (many here have just used words/phrases from what they have heard or read in the media) but it boils down to this-- no civilian needs to have military-combat-assault-rapid-type weapons. You don't get to decide for me what I need.I love this. You don't get to decide for me what I need. There are numerous laws on the books that do decide for you what you need or to do. You need health insurance. You need to wear your seat belt for your safety I bet you I can come up with even more laws that tell you what you need. Rainbow you do not need a m16. You do not need a military type weapon. That is a want. People do not need 20 different firearms that is a want. People do need a couple hunting rifles if they hunt for each of the different types of animals that you hunt. People do need a firearm if they feel the need for protection. How many? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) Well You can only shoot one at a time unless you are Rambo then you need two m60's and an explosive tip arrows and a bow. Why do you feel you need the military type weapon?
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jun 15, 2016 14:35:20 GMT
Thanks for answering, gar. Apparently, you had not "fled the thread." Heh. (Wouldn't it be nice if we had group tags to summon each other, like @internationalpeas or @runnners or @droppedcupcakeeaters?)
|
|
|
Post by gar on Jun 15, 2016 14:37:46 GMT
No, I haven't fled. I can't seem to stay away for some reason but I have generally learned to keep my thoughts to myself The tags would be good!
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jun 15, 2016 16:53:59 GMT
When I consider the thinking, which I truly have, one of my "Yeah, but"s is that there are more than 100 free countries in the world. Many of them have far fewer guns than we do, and far more restrictions for ownership. In these countries, there doesn't seem to be a feeling that the vigilance necessary to remain free includes an armed populace...or that they remain free only through luck. I'd be interested to hear what any international members here think of the idea (...but I suspect they've fled this thread... ![:P](http://i62.tinypic.com/2lu3meu.jpg) ) As an international Pea I have always found that thought to be something very alien and so far removed from my thinking but I could only assume that was just because of the way your nation was formed, your history etc. I took it that it was something I would never identify with and could never really empathise with because it just wasn't in my psyche. It's interesting that it's not universal ![](https://media.fotki.com/2v2JGmVoCxA5eGL.gif) I certainly have zero concern that we ought to have armed members of the general public in case the government turned on us. It's just not going to happen. And not only is it not going to happen, but if by some unlikely weirdness it did happen ... their assault weapon collections aren't going to save them. They will always be outgunned by the government. Always. Meanwhile, more young people die, sacrificed to the God of the Firearms Industry. Because it's not the 2nd amendment we're protecting, it's the NRA, fully funded by the industry. And the gun-loving culture in parts of this country, second only to that in Somalia, apparently. And this is coming from me. Not a rabid gun-control person. Very much in the middle.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 15, 2016 17:04:19 GMT
You don't get to decide for me what I need. I love this. You don't get to decide for me what I need. There are numerous laws on the books that do decide for you what you need or to do. You need health insurance. You need to wear your seat belt for your safety I bet you I can come up with even more laws that tell you what you need. Rainbow you do not need a m16. You do not need a military type weapon. That is a want. People do not need 20 different firearms that is a want. People do need a couple hunting rifles if they hunt for each of the different types of animals that you hunt. People do need a firearm if they feel the need for protection. How many? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) Well You can only shoot one at a time unless you are Rambo then you need two m60's and an explosive tip arrows and a bow. Why do you feel you need the military type weapon? Yes, wants. not NEEDS! People hunt, people collect guns, people use them to protect themselves in their homes. But what I know is that MOST rational, non-radical people KNOW that they can accomplish those things WITHOUT "assault-military-combat-automatic-type" guns. I've been reading (here and other sources) and conversing (in real life) about the SEMANTICS and terms used to describe "assault-military-combat-automatic-type" guns, and what I have gleaned from those reads and convo's is that it is just that--semantics. Someone upthread posted that in order to have a discussion about the guns, before anyone can think about banning them is understanding what they do/are. While that may be somewhat true in the finite terms of a bill/law to be written, those types of statements are just to shut down any gun control advocates from speaking about gun control. We really don't need to have all those very specific, technical terms to have a discussion--WE KNOW that these guns do massive damage at an alarming rate!!! IT IS NOT A COINCIDENCE THAT THOSE WHO ARE MASS SHOOTERS CHOOSE THIS/THESE WEAPONS SPECIFICALLY and PURPOSEFULLY--they are choosing the weapons that are going to do the most damage in the least amount of time, because that is what they are planning. So for those of you who want to keep talking about gun control, please don't be deterred or hushed by those who try to silence you because they say that you obviously do not know anything about gun types. The term "assault weapon" in itself IS vague. It USUALLY means a semi-automatic, high round capacity gun. Where you can hold down a trigger and it fires repeatedly and rapidly until you release the trigger. In some states, these types of guns have been already banned. A semi-automatic only fires as fast as a person can pull the trigger. Advertisements for the "assualt-combat-military type" guns boast that it can be possible to get off 800 rounds in a minute if you know your weapon. (Adam Lanza of Sandy Hook got off 145 rounds in just 5 minutes) High capacity guns usually mean that it can hold 10 rounds or more, the most typical and common is 30 rounds, with clips that can be changed out in just seconds (which is why it has been the gun of choice for mass shooters). There are the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" camp (which I find repulsive and insulting to even be posted by someone on threads where shootings take place!) There are the "they are coming for our guns" "they are taking away my rights" camp. This seems to be the cry of the radicals, as the proposals since at least Sandy Hook put before Congress have not even come close to taking away all guns, or breaking any Second Amendment rights. These statements are made--especially in discussions right after mass shootings to keep us fearful that if we do try to ban a certain type of gun, that we won't be protected. I am far from banning all guns. We own them. We shoot. We have LEO's in our immediate family. We are no strangers to guns. It is a fact that those states and country's with stricter gun control laws have much less death by way of guns. I know that I could protect myself WITHOUT the non-assault-military-combat-automatic types of guns, as most rational, non-radical people could. We should not be making it easy for those who have a devious, murderous mind ease of access to these types of weapons. I do realize that for a very determined, devious, want to be murderer, there is nothing likely going to stop them, but again, why make it easy? You don't see these murderers choosing the fully automatic/machine guns to do the task (because they are illegal and not easily obtainable). It is a myth that the bad guy will just get another weapon and be able to kill just as many people in the same fashion. That is just simply not true and stats lend evidence to that. It is also a fact, that since the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004, use of these types of weapons have increased, and the number of people killed with these weapons have also greatly increased. Yes, it is also a fact that right after any mass shooting, there is the cry that WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING, NOW. Nothing has been done yet, after many tragic losses at the hands of people using these assault type weapons. We do need to do something. Nothing that is going on (i.e. allowing these weapons to be sold to civilians) is working, it is just getting worse. It needs to start somewhere and myself and many others "in the middle of the road" feel the same. I think people are getting so devastated and frustrated that any measures to even TRY to reduce gun deaths are being quashed by Congress. It is a fact that the NRA is the biggest contributor of congressional elections. For a reason--they want their interests (no/little gun control) protected. They shut down (with money) any attempts to try. Guns are all about money and politics. What I learned most from my real life conversations, with other gun owners and LEO (non-family member ones) is that when it comes to the social aspect of guns/gun control, those who are the loudest voices tend to be at the polar opposite ends of the discussion. I do like to think that I am middle of the road, as we own guns, like them and don't feel the need to have all guns banned or restricted, however when trying to have conversations over the internet with someone with a long time pattern of what you believe is to be mentally unstable and offensive, then lively arguments ensue and the real conversation gets lost in all the tit for tat. I am trying here for real conversation. What I was reminded of (and hated hearing from my LEO friends) was advice that I have doled out myself--you keep banging your head against the wall expecting a different result! I'm not going to make any difference to the radical. They reminded me that 1 or 2 radical thinking people in a message group, on the internet is not representative of the majority. I learned that no civilian gun owners that I know have ever put themselves into an imaginary scenario that called for the firing of massive amounts of rounds of ammo at their local restaurant or club! We looked around (we were at a vigil the other night) and saw so many who were hurting, helping, and working to advocate for the people of Orlando. Many were there organizing for gun control (specifically banning the combat/military/assault type weapons). The LEO's that I know are also for bans on these types of weapons. They are the ones who are usually first responders to the situation, and they themselves do not carry them on their person to use! There will likely always be debates about gun control. I do believe that the majority of gun owners want reasonable steps to be taken, such as banning assault-military-combat types of weapons to START to make our country safer, closing purchasing loopholes, and keeping better track. As one of my LEO friends put it, "cut off the supply, and it starves the downline". Yes, bad guys will still try to obtain illegal weapons, however, to even have a fighting chance and make a difference, it has to start somewhere, and because of those who are mass shooters are choosing a very specific type of weapon, that would be a great place to begin in banning/restricting. In speaking to protecting one's self (home/person) one does not need that much firepower from a weapon to protect themselves. The risk of causing injury to many others is just too high of a risk. I'll end for now with that my hope is that those who really do want to have the reasonable conversations about gun control, talk about responsible measures to ban certain types of guns, close loopholes, etc. to make it more difficult for devious minded people/would be murderers to have access to these types of guns, will still speak up, talk, ask questions, be heard over the radicals and extremists who refuse to consider or budge or who try to shut down and block conversations about reasonable and responsible discussion regarding gun control. Your voices matter, they really, really do.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jun 15, 2016 22:20:40 GMT
You don't get to decide for me what I need. I love this. You don't get to decide for me what I need. There are numerous laws on the books that do decide for you what you need or to do. You need health insurance. You need to wear your seat belt for your safety I bet you I can come up with even more laws that tell you what you need. Rainbow you do not need a m16. You do not need a military type weapon. That is a want. People do not need 20 different firearms that is a want. People do need a couple hunting rifles if they hunt for each of the different types of animals that you hunt. People do need a firearm if they feel the need for protection. How many? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) Well You can only shoot one at a time unless you are Rambo then you need two m60's and an explosive tip arrows and a bow. Why do you feel you need the military type weapon? You can't possibly know the needs of every situation.
|
|
|
Post by vpohlman on Jun 15, 2016 22:39:24 GMT
So, I pretty much always stay out of these conversations, but I recently had a conversation with my barely out of college son and it was about the wants versus needs thing. One of his last semester professors just explained that humans only actually need three things. We need food, shelter and companionship. I questioned the companionship thing and he explained that away by saying we'd be unable to mentally handle being absolutely alone, not to mention the reproduction thing! So, whatever this may have to do with this thread, it struck a chord with me and I just had to say it! I have way more than I need, but not nearly as much as I want!
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 15, 2016 23:01:28 GMT
I love this. You don't get to decide for me what I need. There are numerous laws on the books that do decide for you what you need or to do. You need health insurance. You need to wear your seat belt for your safety I bet you I can come up with even more laws that tell you what you need. Rainbow you do not need a m16. You do not need a military type weapon. That is a want. People do not need 20 different firearms that is a want. People do need a couple hunting rifles if they hunt for each of the different types of animals that you hunt. People do need a firearm if they feel the need for protection. How many? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) Well You can only shoot one at a time unless you are Rambo then you need two m60's and an explosive tip arrows and a bow. Why do you feel you need the military type weapon? You can't possibly know the needs of every situation.Hunting I can name off a few rifles for each type of animal hunted for food. Self Defense I can name off a few hand guns. Once again not a single one of those needs a large clip. Not a single one of those needs a military style weapon. Why DO YOU think you need one?
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jun 15, 2016 23:06:59 GMT
You can't possibly know the needs of every situation. Hunting I can name off a few rifles for each type of animal hunted for food. Self Defense I can name off a few hand guns. Once again not a single one of those needs a large clip. Not a single one of those needs a military style weapon. Why DO YOU think you need one? The reason is irrelevant because you don't get to decide for me if I need something or not.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Jun 15, 2016 23:35:41 GMT
The reason is irrelevant because you don't get to decide for me if I need something or not. Here is a question-and I think by now you know that while you and I don't always agree, we do okay being reasonable with each other... So here is the scenario. You and I, we are having coffee together. As we sit across the table from each other, I say 'you know, I don't understand the need for a person to have an automatic weapon that is capable of shooting a lot of bullets at one time.' And you say 'that isn't up to you to decide, it is my right to own one.' I agree with you in general about gun ownership and you nod your head and say that the Second Amendment guarantees that you are able to buy whatever kind of weapon platform your want that is legal. I say again, but what is the point of rapid fire (regardless of how many times a person pulls the trigger.) We start to disagree about the finer points. But-and here is my question-at what point do we get to a point where we can start talking about a compromise? I hear and listen to what you say, you hear and listen to what I say. Maybe I concede to a weapon that has a smaller magazine, you concede to smaller magazine. Yay! We agree on something! I hear you say that no one has the right to tell you what you can own, and in general I do agree with that. But in practice, I have some reservations. Would there ever be a point where we could talk about compromise, the gray area in between no way you get a military style weapon and yes, I get what ever I want?
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jun 15, 2016 23:51:48 GMT
The reason is irrelevant because you don't get to decide for me if I need something or not. Here is a question-and I think by now you know that while you and I don't always agree, we do okay being reasonable with each other... So here is the scenario. You and I, we are having coffee together. As we sit across the table from each other, I say 'you know, I don't understand the need for a person to have an automatic weapon that is capable of shooting a lot of bullets at one time.' And you say 'that isn't up to you to decide, it is my right to own one.' I agree with you in general about gun ownership and you nod your head and say that the Second Amendment guarantees that you are able to buy whatever kind of weapon platform your want that is legal. I say again, but what is the point of rapid fire (regardless of how many times a person pulls the trigger.) We start to disagree about the finer points. But-and here is my question-at what point do we get to a point where we can start talking about a compromise? I hear and listen to what you say, you hear and listen to what I say. Maybe I concede to a weapon that has a smaller magazine, you concede to smaller magazine. Yay! We agree on something! I hear you say that no one has the right to tell you what you can own, and in general I do agree with that. But in practice, I have some reservations. Would there ever be a point where we could talk about compromise, the gray area in between no way you get a military style weapon and yes, I get what ever I want? There is no trust in this administration or of anyone on the left regarding this because there have been so many blatant lies about absolutely everything. I don't expect anyone to admit that we were lied to, but the trust just isn't there. How can you have meaningful conversation even when you cannot trust anything you hear? I could name a bunch of the lies but what is the point? Nobody is going to own up to them. And forcing us to buy anything is unconstitutional, but what does anyone care? "It's for the greater good." No. Giving up my rights is not for the greater good. Damn, we need MORE freedom not less. This used to be a country I was proud of, not so much anymore. I don't even want to be associated with a lot of what is happening. It's being changed into ugly crap I don't even know what to call it. It certainly isn't good. When our own damn flag is removed because it's racist? Go back to where ever you came from if you can't stand to look at the flag I fought for in the country I fought for! I learned to fire a weapon in the military, and had earned the expert marksmanship ribbon to wear on my uniform. I'm not giving up my weapon. Maybe you don't understand that, but that's OK. I do.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Jun 16, 2016 0:02:42 GMT
Here is a question-and I think by now you know that while you and I don't always agree, we do okay being reasonable with each other... So here is the scenario. You and I, we are having coffee together. As we sit across the table from each other, I say 'you know, I don't understand the need for a person to have an automatic weapon that is capable of shooting a lot of bullets at one time.' And you say 'that isn't up to you to decide, it is my right to own one.' I agree with you in general about gun ownership and you nod your head and say that the Second Amendment guarantees that you are able to buy whatever kind of weapon platform your want that is legal. I say again, but what is the point of rapid fire (regardless of how many times a person pulls the trigger.) We start to disagree about the finer points. But-and here is my question-at what point do we get to a point where we can start talking about a compromise? I hear and listen to what you say, you hear and listen to what I say. Maybe I concede to a weapon that has a smaller magazine, you concede to smaller magazine. Yay! We agree on something! I hear you say that no one has the right to tell you what you can own, and in general I do agree with that. But in practice, I have some reservations. Would there ever be a point where we could talk about compromise, the gray area in between no way you get a military style weapon and yes, I get what ever I want? There is no trust in this administration or of anyone on the left regarding this because there have been so many blatant lies about absolutely everything. I don't expect anyone to admit that we were lied to, but the trust just isn't there. How can you have meaningful conversation even when you cannot trust anything you hear? I could name a bunch of the lies but what is the point? Nobody is going to own up to them. And forcing us to buy anything is unconstitutional, but what does anyone care? "It's for the greater good." No. Giving up my rights is not for the greater good. Damn, we need MORE freedom not less. This used to be a country I was proud of, not so much anymore. I don't even want to be associated with a lot of what is happening. It's being changed into ugly crap I don't even know what to call it. It certainly isn't good. When our own damn flag is removed because it's racist? Go back to where ever you came from if you can't stand to look at the flag I fought for in the country I fought for! I learned to fire a weapon in the military, and had earned the expert marksmanship ribbon to wear on my uniform. I'm not giving up my weapon. Maybe you don't understand that, but that's OK. I do. So, see, I learned something new about you-I had no idea that you were former military. And I do understand, not maybe in the sense that I ever served, but in the sense that I have heard enough from people who have issues with trust. I have a kid in the National Guard that while isn't in active service, it is service. And I woke up the other morning to a text with a picture of his ginormous rucksack and his gun with the message that said 'this is my gun, there are others like it, but this one is mine.' He and I have these discussions too. We don't always agree either, but I do listen to him. And there have been points of compromise. So that doesn't mean that two reasonable people can't talk about compromise. I am not against responsible gun ownership-I grew up with too many hunter types (and people who shoot for fun) to ever go there. My question was at what point can we talk about maybe how easy it is to get the guns, or that maybe allowing for large capacity magazines isn't a good idea without a separate license or...something. But without discussion, we can't get there. And I believe there is a grey area-one that allows for both sides to feel that they haven't lost anything. And, which flag?
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 16, 2016 0:17:11 GMT
The reason is irrelevant because you don't get to decide for me if I need something or not. Here is a question-and I think by now you know that while you and I don't always agree, we do okay being reasonable with each other... So here is the scenario. You and I, we are having coffee together. As we sit across the table from each other, I say 'you know, I don't understand the need for a person to have an automatic weapon that is capable of shooting a lot of bullets at one time.' And you say 'that isn't up to you to decide, it is my right to own one.' I agree with you in general about gun ownership and you nod your head and say that the Second Amendment guarantees that you are able to buy whatever kind of weapon platform your want that is legal. I say again, but what is the point of rapid fire (regardless of how many times a person pulls the trigger.) We start to disagree about the finer points. But-and here is my question-at what point do we get to a point where we can start talking about a compromise? I hear and listen to what you say, you hear and listen to what I say. Maybe I concede to a weapon that has a smaller magazine, you concede to smaller magazine. Yay! We agree on something! I hear you say that no one has the right to tell you what you can own, and in general I do agree with that. But in practice, I have some reservations. Would there ever be a point where we could talk about compromise, the gray area in between no way you get a military style weapon and yes, I get what ever I want? Head, banging on wall 100x with expectation of different results. There isn't going to be a compromise anxiousmom from anyone with a radical, fearful, paranoid, polar end of the spectrum point of view. There will always be blame that the "other side" is doing everything wrong and lies, never to be trusted. You ARE right anxiousmom, there is no reason at all to have a civilian using any assault-military-combat type of gun. NONE. Protecting ones self can be accomplished with other gun choices that are not assault type weapons. Look at (or even talk to) your LEO's they carry and have guns, use guns for protection. They are trained and practice and they don't use assault type guns on a daily basis for the job that they do day in and day out.
|
|