Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ColDayMan

Gun Rights

Recommended Posts

I don't understand why I've now seen that picture 5 times today.  Seems like it is being used as a gotcha moment by both sides somehow.  Just goes to show the completely different dimensions of reality this debate on gun control is taking place in, I suppose.  By "gun control", I mean "the blatant and unprecedented assault on your god given 2nd amendment rights"..... just to clarify for those who are operating in a different reality than my own.

 

As for the picture, I hear Obama can hit one of the stars on Old Glory dead center from 50 yards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr President has bad shooting form.  His elbows are down low, they should be up & away from his body.  He needs to lean forward also, not backward.  The gun looks too small for him also.  Doesn't really strike me as someone who shoots frequently at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then that makes him even more admirable in my eyes.

 

Now, if a Navy SEAL couldn't defend himself against a wacko, what makes the NRA think a rent-a-cop can defend a school-full of children?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2013/02/02/chris-kyle-dead_n_2608772.html


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fair enough.  If they're going to stage a photo for a chummy press release, at least coach the guy on how to hold the gun.  His cheek is not supposed to rest on the gun stock like that either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh... now I get it.  It was staged.  I thought it was more of a "aha!" moment.

 

Clearly, they photoshopped the background in with all of the leaves on the trees...... either that or they staged the photo in advance of staging the Newtown thingy just for backup ammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh... now I get it.  It was staged.  I thought it was more of a "aha!" moment.

 

Clearly, they photoshopped the background in with all of the leaves on the trees...... either that or they staged the photo in advance of staging the Newtown thingy just for backup ammo

 

Your sarcasm layered on top of sarcasm mixed with irony has totally obfuscated whatever the hell your point was in the first place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that set a lot of people off with the Obama shooting picture was the “do not alter this in any way” warning that came along with its release.  The ‘net is full of the Parker-Stone attitude:  “Say we can’t make fun of something, and we know we have to”.  The one with Queen Elizabeth is far and away the funniest, though.  Hard to top that one.

 

The “wacko” who shot Chuck Kyle was a PTSD veteran he was trying to help recover, so this case is more similar to the child services worker killed by her foster daughter in Willoughby Hills than any of the recent shooting cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then that makes him even more admirable in my eyes.

 

Now, if a Navy SEAL couldn't defend himself against a wacko, what makes the NRA think a rent-a-cop can defend a school-full of children?

 

Things like this might lead one to that impression:

 

http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/man-shot-near-martin-luther-king-jr-high-school-in-detroit

 

(WXYZ) - Police sources tell 7 Action News that a women's basketball coach from Martin Luther King, Jr. Senior High School shot two men who attacked him as he was walking two basketball players to their cars in the school parking lot.

 

Police sources say the coach was walking the two girls to their cars when two men allegedly approached and one pulled out a gun and grabbed him by his chain necklace. The coach then pulled out his gun and shot both of them, according to sources.

 

The man who shot the attackers was 70 years old, according to police.

 

You ask me what chance a normal person might have with a gun if a SEAL is vulnerable to one.  I ask you what chance a 70-year-old man and two high school girls' basketball players would have against two armed young male attackers without one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There really should be two threads, one for "gun control" and another for "gun bans"....... in one thread we can discuss the reach, scope and limits of the 2nd Amendment.  In the other, we can put all the fluff and colored bubbles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As best I can see from the current proposals in Congress, a ban on many kinds of firearms (including a very sizable portion of those currently in circulation and being manufactured) is exactly what is being proposed.  So forgive me if I remain somewhat skeptical that the two are in fact separate topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But none of the proposals involve a ban on handguns (like that used in the example you posted), concealed carry, sporting rifles (like the one Obama is shooting), or anything of the sort.  The only "ban" being discussed is on military style rifles and extended clips for otherwise legal guns (i.e. the guns and accessories being used in these recent mass shootings).  Even the bans that are being considered carry a grandfather clause which would allow current legal owners to keep the guns they've already bought.  Am I missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can't know whether the coach's gun would be illegal; the proposal would indeed ban a very wide variety of handguns because many handguns have standard magazines with capacities of more than 10 rounds, which is where the proposed law would cap capacities.

 

In addition, the grandfather clause is hollow: Not only would it require immediate registration, as I understand it, but the registration would be non-transferable, including by devise, bequest, or inheritance--meaning the weapon would become illegal and would need to be destroyed when you die.  The "grandfather clause" thus basically just means that the gun ban phases in over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is the exact purpose of any grandfather clause, no?

 

And how many handguns really do come "standard" with "extended" clips?  Who would honestly even want to carry around a gun with high capacity magazine.  The cops don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is the exact purpose of any grandfather clause, no?

 

And how many handguns really do come "standard" with "extended" clips?  Who would honestly even want to carry around a gun with high capacity magazine.  The cops don't.

 

Depends on the meaning of the word "extended".

 

My S&W 915 was made before the 1994 law.  It came standard with a 16 round clip. 

 

After the law was passed, the 915 was replaced with the 910, which came standard with a 10 round clip.

 

Both are considered "extended" by the New York law. 

 

Their limit of seven isn't really arbitary.  It's like saying beer cannot be sold more than five at a time, when the standard unit is multiples of six.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is the exact purpose of any grandfather clause, no?

 

Perhaps so.  But that makes the proposal a non-starter, as far as I'm concerned.

 

And how many handguns really do come "standard" with "extended" clips?  Who would honestly even want to carry around a gun with high capacity magazine.  The cops don't.

 

I don't know how many guns come standard with magazine capacities over 10, but I don't believe such capacities are generally called "extended," especially when it's a fixed magazine and not a detachable one (clip).  Nor do I know how many standard-issue police weapons have 11+ round clips, but I'm guessing many do.

 

As for who would honestly want to carry around a gun with that capacity, I don't know, but I know that such people should be presumed innocent and not denied the right to do so based on the effete sensibilities of the chattering classes.  I also know that my hometown probably had more guns than people and the only homicide in the area during my childhood was by arson.  And I know that putting the onus on gun owners to justify their ownership is putting the onus diametrically opposite where it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I don't agree with your characterization ofany onus being placed on gun owners, where is this opposite place you feel it should be placed?  Sellers?  Manufacturers?  Non gun owners?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't waste your time, Hts121. There's nothing anyone can do to stop the shooting except to deplete the number of shooters. Sadly, many innocents will get in the way. But that's what this nation has chosen to be. The Great American Shooting Range.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do our "gun rights" advocates feel that we should legalize fully automatic weapons?  After all, if an AR-15 is good, a full auto M-16 must be better, and an M-249 better than that.  What if I want a Browning .50 cal machine gun, because I want to be certain that what I shoot not only dies, but practically explodes?  What about an RPG?  And if I am to resist tyranny, shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles are really de rigeur these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I don't agree with your characterization ofany onus being placed on gun owners, where is this opposite place you feel it should be placed?  Sellers?  Manufacturers?  Non gun owners?

 

Asking questions like "who would want to own a gun ..." or "why would anyone need a gun ..." or such automatically puts an onus on gun owners.  And it should be pretty clear that I think the onus to prove the need to infringe the right to keep and bear arms should be on the government and any of its supports who propose infringing that right; people should no more need to justify keeping and bearing arms than they should need to justify their right to speak, assemble, or worship as fits their conscience.

 

Don't waste your time, Hts121. There's nothing anyone can do to stop the shooting except to deplete the number of shooters. Sadly, many innocents will get in the way. But that's what this nation has chosen to be. The Great American Shooting Range.

 

I just posted a link earlier on this page where someone did in fact "do something to stop the shooting."  They defended themselves.

 

So do our "gun rights" advocates feel that we should legalize fully automatic weapons?  After all, if an AR-15 is good, a full auto M-16 must be better, and an M-249 better than that.  What if I want a Browning .50 cal machine gun, because I want to be certain that what I shoot not only dies, but practically explodes?  What about an RPG?  And if I am to resist tyranny, shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles are really de rigeur these days.

 

First, I'm not one of the Paulite proto-anarchists pining for a second Civil War premised on resisting the tyranny of the federal government (e.g., the income tax and the EPA).  In fact, I have as many bitter disagreements with those types as I do with the doves.  As I note, the flowery rhetoric they generally use is basically a gussied up justification for shooting cops, since legislators may pass the laws, but it's the police who come to enforce them on you if you choose to ignore them.  Many of the same people constructing the Constitution and Bill of Rights (including, most significantly, George Washington) also took the lead in putting down rebellions against the new government (Shay's Rebellion, Whiskey Rebellion).

 

But you're right, I don't see the constitutional argument that would allow for banning man-portable rifles of any kind, including fully automatic ones.  As for the moral argument, the same one that applies to semi-automatic weapons applies to fully automatic ones as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do our "gun rights" advocates feel that we should legalize fully automatic weapons?  After all, if an AR-15 is good, a full auto M-16 must be better, and an M-249 better than that.  What if I want a Browning .50 cal machine gun, because I want to be certain that what I shoot not only dies, but practically explodes?  What about an RPG?  And if I am to resist tyranny, shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles are really de rigeur these days.

 

are you saying know a guy who has this stuff?  If so, send em my way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I just posted a link earlier on this page where someone did in fact "do something to stop the shooting."  They defended themselves.

 

Sure, in a Wild West sort of world, that's how one defends himself. A little shoot-em-up at the OK Corral!

 

In a civilized society, the gun doesn't exist. The law does, as does a sense of belonging to something greater than oneself -- ie: a family, or neighborhood, or community etc. But this concept is so strange in America, that's why I'm pretty sure we'll keep on shooting until it causes political and social upheaval, or those of us who are sick of the violence flee to law-abiding nations, and those who don't kill everyone else that's left behind.

 

So by all means, keep on shooting. It seems to be the only way change will happen.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My main concern regarding these shootings is why we have all these men who want to kill many other people in one fell swoop rather than the means used to do it.

 

And that is the discussion we really should be having.  I'd be interested in hearing a convincing explanation for that.  Thus far, most of the Facebook friends I have that have moved the discussion in that direction have posited too little religion in public life and a surfeit of violent video games.  In case my tone didn't come across as I typed that, I'm obviously unconvinced.  Japan and Korea play far more hours per capita of violent video games than we do and don't seem to have this breakdown in social cohesion, and they certainly don't have the kind of religious presence in their public life that I'm pretty sure the posters I referred to above meant.  (I could have an entire separate thread just about East Asian spirituality--but I digress.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The average murder probably comes down to lack of jobs, drug trade, and gang fights. If jobs were available, gangs would probably decline. Legalize drugs and put violent drug dealers out of business and end territory wars. Tax it and put that money back into the communities.  Solve these issues and crime will decrease further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main concern regarding these shootings is why we have all these men who want to kill many other people in one fell swoop rather than the means used to do it.

 

And that is the discussion we really should be having.  I'd be interested in hearing a convincing explanation for that.  Thus far, most of the Facebook friends I have that have moved the discussion in that direction have posited too little religion in public life and a surfeit of violent video games.  In case my tone didn't come across as I typed that, I'm obviously unconvinced.  Japan and Korea play far more hours per capita of violent video games than we do and don't seem to have this breakdown in social cohesion, and they certainly don't have the kind of religious presence in their public life that I'm pretty sure the posters I referred to above meant.  (I could have an entire separate thread just about East Asian spirituality--but I digress.)

 

Jesus is a square peg that's people are constantly trying to shove into round, hexagonal and oblong holes. Anyway, for every one person that snaps from playing a violent game there's 10 that are getting it out of their system. While I do find watching people playing excessively violent games for hours disturbing, you don't always get to "go with your gut". Surely if these people actually were violent gamers, the media would find out what games and systems they owned and even track them down on online services. But they haven't been able to. One thing gaming does is keep your mind engaged so that you aren't constantly dwelling on or stewing about things in your mind over and over. And you aren't bored -- boredom in men often leads to street crime.

 

Most of the violent people I know didn't even touch video games because they were for "nerds" and "pussies".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are both worthy discussions and certainly interconnected when examining mass shootings.  A mass shooting typically takes one psycho and one or more weapons capable of killing many people before the police can respond.  But, on the other hand, taking steps to restrict access to the types of weapons used almost uniformily in these mass shootings is more easily done than banning crazy..... agreed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm simply afraid that the craftiness of the crazy will easily outpace the fact that a relatively easy method of killing has been removed from their repertoire, with many (albeit more difficult to use) methods of killing still available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also concerned that assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, and anything else that you want to define as a "relatively easy method of killing" won't actually be removed from their "repertoire," but will instead be denied only to law-abiding citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really care either way if the combat weapons and large magazines get banned or not. I'm not confident that the average untrained criminal or the average untrained civilian is able to take full advantage of combat weaponry. I think about the vast majority of murders that take place with stuff like .22s, cheap 9s and shotguns and the people who have been stabbed, beaten to death, strangled, run over with cars etc. On the other hand, I think a lot of people that own these types of weapons and clips are deathly afraid of losing the perceived social capital that they have obtained by owing such weaponry. So, put me in the skeptical of the effectiveness of banning certain types of weapons, ammo and magazines camp -- the effectiveness of those things is overestimated by both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main concern regarding these shootings is why we have all these men who want to kill many other people in one fell swoop rather than the means used to do it.

 

I'm pretty sure this is their theme song. One of them, anyway.....

 

Nine Inch Nails - Burn - HQ - Lyrics


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love that song, actually.

 

Yep, it's in my iTunes for years. And when I posted that, I found a mix of the song I like even more. It is BBA (Beyond Bad-A$$)....

 


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I'm not one of the Paulite proto-anarchists pining for a second Civil War premised on resisting the tyranny of the federal government (e.g., the income tax and the EPA).  In fact, I have as many bitter disagreements with those types as I do with the doves.  As I note, the flowery rhetoric they generally use is basically a gussied up justification for shooting cops, since legislators may pass the laws, but it's the police who come to enforce them on you if you choose to ignore them. 

 

The rank and file cops I know are pretty close to unanimously against gun control.  The ones on my Facebook page are among the most impassioned anti-ban posters (many of the others are veterans, especially fron elite units).  The Milwaukee County Sherrif who made the news wasn't even close to unique. 

 

The only police agencies, besides a few specialized units like CAGE in Illinois, that can be counted on to show any enthusiasm for grabbing guns from the law abiding are ATF and perhaps TSA (effectively ATF's offspring).  If you have friends in front line law enforcement, ask them their opinion of "F Troop". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a civilized society, the gun doesn't exist. The law does, as does a sense of belonging to something greater than oneself -- ie: a family, or neighborhood, or community etc. But this concept is so strange in America, that's why I'm pretty sure we'll keep on shooting until it causes political and social upheaval, or those of us who are sick of the violence flee to law-abiding nations, and those who don't kill everyone else that's left behind.

 

 

So where exactly are these law abiding nations where we can all flee to?  Reality is that we live in a dangerous world already, and our 24-7 media perpetuates and magnifies every purse snatching, every bus driver fist fight, every home invasion, every gang-related turf war, school shooting, etc. 

 

Many reasonable people see these stories on the news, and say "I'm not going to let my family become victims" and choose to arm themselves because they feel the police cannot prevent the inevitable attack.  I won't argue with that logic, but I really do question where the limits of the 2nd amendment are, as far as what can be reasonably considered adequate for citizens to arm themselves.  I think a semi-automatic assault rifle like an AK or AR15 is probably right on that line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where exactly are these law abiding nations where we can all flee to?  Reality is that we live in a dangerous world already, and our 24-7 media perpetuates and magnifies every purse snatching, every bus driver fist fight, every home invasion, every gang-related turf war, school shooting, etc.

 

Ummm...pretty much every other industrialized nation has a lower violent crime rate than the United States.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where exactly are these law abiding nations where we can all flee to?  Reality is that we live in a dangerous world already, and our 24-7 media perpetuates and magnifies every purse snatching, every bus driver fist fight, every home invasion, every gang-related turf war, school shooting, etc.

 

Ummm...pretty much every other industrialized nation has a lower violent crime rate than the United States.

 

Of course, I was being sarcastic to KJP's comment that seems to indicate America is on the verge of collapse due to gun violence.  But in all seriousness, the US is a very very big place.  Take away a handful of hot spots of violent crime like Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, or along the Mexico border etc, and you've still got a long list of very large, very safe cities, and pretty much the entire country between the coasts where you really don't even have to lock your door and kids can safely play in the streets and people can go about their business without worry of being shot or having to shoot someone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where exactly are these law abiding nations where we can all flee to?  Reality is that we live in a dangerous world already, and our 24-7 media perpetuates and magnifies every purse snatching, every bus driver fist fight, every home invasion, every gang-related turf war, school shooting, etc.

 

Ummm...pretty much every other industrialized nation has a lower violent crime rate than the United States.

 

 

And they all play the same violent video games that our children do.  Especially in places like Japan....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America isn't on the verge of collapse, but it has become a silly-ville of narrow, extreme interests whose only concerns seem to be God, guns and gays. And it's really bumming me out. So much so that if someone offered me a job in Canada or overseas, I'd get the hell out of this ignorant, goofy country before gottaplan could call the morality police on me! (that's a joke, gottaplan; don't wig out).


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
America isn't on the verge of collapse, but it has become a silly-ville of narrow, extreme interests whose only concerns seem to be God, guns and gays.

 

Hah!  If you really think that, you've been spending too much time following nothing but partisan political threads and sites.  Don't lose perspective.  There's an awful lot of good stuff going on in this country that has nothing to do with politics, let alone just the narrow political issues of God, guns, gays, and Oxford commas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah!  If you really think that, you've been spending too much time following nothing but partisan political threads and sites.  Don't lose perspective.  There's an awful lot of good stuff going on in this country that has nothing to do with politics, let alone just the narrow political issues of God, guns, gays, and Oxford commas.

 

Yeah, I just like whining too much sometimes. But don't be dissin' my Oxford commas!


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah!  If you really think that, you've been spending too much time following nothing but partisan political threads and sites.  Don't lose perspective.  There's an awful lot of good stuff going on in this country that has nothing to do with politics, let alone just the narrow political issues of God, guns, gays, and Oxford commas.

 

Yeah, I just like whining too much sometimes. But don't be dissin' my Oxford commas!

 

I'm not dissing your Oxford commas; I'm dissing your lack of them ("God, guns and gays."), you benighted lexical Cro-Magnon. :-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where exactly are these law abiding nations where we can all flee to?  Reality is that we live in a dangerous world already, and our 24-7 media perpetuates and magnifies every purse snatching, every bus driver fist fight, every home invasion, every gang-related turf war, school shooting, etc.

 

Ummm...pretty much every other industrialized nation has a lower violent crime rate than the United States.

 

 

Most of them have what is politely called "preventive detention", if I'm not mistaken. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of them have what is politely called "preventive detention", if I'm not mistaken. 

 

Oh yeah, I've heard about that. It's called their Pre-Crime Division, right? Riiiight.....

 

Minority Report Trailer


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he's referring to what all true red blooded American conservatives really know, which is that all Europeans are actually serfs with no rights.  They put on a good show when you visit them, but at night they leave the fancy central cities where the tourists are and go sleep on a hay pile in a stable somewhere (hanging up their trendy clothes neatly first).  That is, if the King doesn't throw them in prison preemptively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...