yeah, mental health issues, silencers, etc should be on the table.
i assume most gun owners on here are stable...assume, anyway.
i assume most gun owners on here are stable...assume, anyway.
Las Vegas shooting
- Thread starter TarHeelMark
- Start date
That is why I meant it was terrible, because I am looking at it in terms of how it stands now. Also, vehicles are required for most people to thrive in our society. I have no issues with guns but they are not required for the majority of people to simply function and thrive. Regardless, the main reason for me was the fact that vehicles legally require more than many weapons.
Interesting. That's more than I assumed about you.
Well, you know what they say about assumptions!
As to the vehicle comparison, you don't have to have a license to BUY a vehicle, just to operate it LEGALLY. The assumption is you have a license and are legally able to operate it, but I can go to anyone's ad in the newspaper and buy any car I want and no one says a word about whether or not I have a license, insurance or anything else that says I am "safe" to drive it. And even if I am legal, that doesn't mean I will operate it within the confines of the law. I guess that is my point is that we can legislate all we want, but we cannot force people not to do bad things no matter what object they choose to use to carry out their plans.
In the case of the whacko in LV, I read this morning that he passed no less than 30 background checks to purchase his guns. He still went off the rails and killed almost 60 people. He bought the guns legally, paid for the hotel room legally and did everything by the book, right up until the point he started shooting people. OK, technically he broke hotel rules carrying guns in their establishment, but you get the point.
There are no fast and easy solutions. You say gun owners should be licensed to own them and under the right circumstances, I might agree. However, there are other factors that play into this that are the basis for people not wanting that to happen that are, IMHO, legitimate. This is what folks like the NRA are fighting for and, were it not for politicians and the press hating the NRA so much, most people would actually be surprised at some of the great work the NRA does in educating people on guns. Too much to debate here, but suffice to say not one of us wants to ever see something like this happen again. I wish I did have a magic wand that could solve this to everyone's satisfaction, but I don't.
Mainly, because the 2nd amendment is not about hunting.
"No one needs _________"
This is the last sound you hear before liberals start trying to trample your rights.
The sooner you get it through your dome that it's not up to you to decide what other people need, this will go a lot easier for you.
Almost broke my "no likes in 2017" rule for that.
If anyone wants to REALLY look at the intent of the framers, it was for the citizenry to be able to defend itself against, and if necessary, to overthrow a tyrannical government that is no longer responsive to the will of the people. So the weaponry the citizenry possessed needed to be on a par with that of the military. At that time, the government had muskets, and the people had muskets. So truthfully, the framers intended for the people to have access to the same weapons as the government, so we do NEED M1 Abrams tanks, and RPG's and TOW anti tank missiles, and Cobra gunships.
Now we're getting somewhere.
Come down to Atlanta and drive during rush hour for a couple of weeks. You might change your mind. @TarHeelNation11 knows what I'm talking about.
That is ludicrous if taken too liberally though. There are reasonable assumptions on what we want and need. There are also specific needs for specific reasons (guns for safety, guns for hunting, etc..). But there are standards by which we agree on certain things and we can't just justify anything we want by saying it is something we personally need just because we feel like it. Again, I am all for people owning guns. I am not all for people owning automatic weapons. That is not a need. I think they should be highly regulated and monitored, and they may very well be. Most can't say they have a need for that weapon though. It is no different than my golf clubs, which are for my pleasure. I mean, I need them to play golf and for my own sanity I need to play golf. However, I don't really have to play golf though. Everything around it is a want.
I'm not trying to insist or decide for anyone. I'm offering my perspective. We are a democratic society and we do occupy and share the same place, so it makes sense to discuss it, since it will affect all of us. I don't remember saying that I get to decide for everyone else.
Well, the police have been militarized. The entire culture glorifies war and military, so it shouldn't be a shock that people want to emulate them and believe they should get to play Army in the neighborhood.. I do not believe that the writers of the Constitution wanted the citizens to have the exact same weaponry as the military. War is a lucrative industry. This country has been at war now for 13 years straight?
At that time of the founding of the nation, the idea of a standing army was never considered. That is why there were militias. If people were armed, and they were suddenly needed to make-up an army, they'd be prepared to help fight an invader... not the government itself. And, their understanding of "war" was completely different than what we have now.
I will offer that the most patriotic thing you can do is to challenge your government. But, using bombs and bullets is archaic. Coercion through physical submission is not coercion I want.
Don't even bother. These are the same people who think the government should tell people which bathroom they should use. Yet any regulation of firearms at any level is a violation of 'muh freedom.' You're never going to see any kind of intellectual honesty coming out of that camp.
I am fully aware, and even totally agree, that the firearm is just a tool. You could use a rock, a bat, or the Sunday newspaper and kill another person. The overall idea that any one of us has the right to take another person's life is what seems to be running rampant in the society. Apparently, they're taking it well beyond self-defense. I don't see that overall idea going away.
So, while I agree that those are just inanimate objects that are harmless without the living person to make them dangerous... I am trying to at least minimize/lower the body counts in these situations.
Liberals want no part of the government telling you what bathroom to us but you want then to be in the health care business.
You want the government to keep it legal for millions of babies to be murdered every year but then you want them to take my legal right to have a gun because a wacko murders 60 people.
Makes sense to me!
I have a gun. I enjoy shooting it. Its bigger and louder than i need and reslly isnt practical. But i like it. I like holding it. I like knowing its accessible to protect me and my fam. I support the 2nd amend. But i cant support guns being available that are solely designed to kill mass quantities of people in the shortest amont of time. How could anyone support that? To me gun rights and abortion walk hand in hand as issues that staunch supporters on both sides of both issues forego reason and objective common sense regarding regulating in favor of bullshit partisan politics and religous fanaticism.
Strum - I appreciate the civil debate with you and I am going to stay on topic. I agree we all want to make sure these things don't happen again, we just differ on how to best stop them. I guess when I see your statement here I worry that what is lost in that way of dealing with preventing tragedies is what we all give up in the process. Sure, it may not affect you directly now, but it will affect you in other ways at some point and it also gives the opportunity for people to start taking things away that will affect you directly.
For instance, using this thinking, one might conclude that if you cared about victims of terrorism, you would want a complete ban on Muslims in the United States, because any one of them might “go off” and kill thousands of people, and you can never tell which ones or when they might do it. And all illegal immigrants should likewise be immediately deported, otherwise you must not care about the murder, rape, robbery, auto wreck victims of illegal immigrants, etc.
See where I am going here? We have become a society that only cares about our individual wants and needs and not about those of others. We see no problem with someone else's freedoms taken away if we aren't directly affected, but fail to see how doing so might lead to things we care about being taken away down the road. College kids nowadays see no problem shutting down speakers whom they disagree with, but at the same time will tell you they are all for "freedom of speech". Lost on them is the fact freedom of speech means freedom for everyone, not just who you like.
Anyway, I hope and pray we never have to see anything like this ever again.
What right or freedom is being taken away from you, or in jeopardy of being taken away from you?
And, for the record, I don't condone censorship of anyone about anything. So, the "college kids nowadays" will come to understand that censorship means they will get censored, too.
The right to purchase guns. And please don't try to tell me that the end game of anti-gun politicians isn't to ban them outright. We have more gun laws on the books than for any other product in this country and every year they want more and more laws restricting ownership. Each time something happens like the tragedy in LV they are the FIRST ones to call for more laws and they always say "We don't want to keep you from owning a gun, just....." and yet each new law restricts ownership further and further. And people who aren't affected by more guns laws are always quick to say more restrictions are "reasonable" and we shouldn't be against them. And who do these new laws affect? Me, that's who. Most people don't see the erosion of freedoms like we gun owners do and how flippant people are about giving up more and more freedoms every day. It has already happening with the 1st amendment (see my example of college students above) and with people having their lives destroyed because they speak out against things they don't agree with. People aren't free to speak their minds anymore because of the fear of severe retribution and yet those who aren't directly affected by it really don't care and, in some cases, justify having these people's lives destroyed because they, too, don't like their opinion.
As for these kids understanding censorship one day, I doubt it because they are being taught that one way of thinking is morally superior to others, therefore that inferior thinking is not worthy of being heard. THEIR thoughts and however they choose to express them, however, shouldn't be censored or even debated in their mind. I seriously doubt they will ever understand censorship or the part they are playing in advancing it. If they do, it will likely be too late to correct it.
Like I said, people are quick to allow freedoms to be taken away for those things that don't directly involve them, but fail to see how this will one day affect them, too.
As for these kids understanding censorship one day, I doubt it because they are being taught that one way of thinking is morally superior to others, therefore that inferior thinking is not worthy of being heard. THEIR thoughts and however they choose to express them, however, shouldn't be censored or even debated in their mind. I seriously doubt they will ever understand censorship or the part they are playing in advancing it. If they do, it will likely be too late to correct it.
Like I said, people are quick to allow freedoms to be taken away for those things that don't directly involve them, but fail to see how this will one day affect them, too.
Last edited:
You are wrong about black market guns. I am able to find fully automatic weapons quiet easily. I would never seek one out, but I know several people who have them
I'm not an "anti-gun politician" here. No one is taking your right to purchase guns. I'm not trying to take your right to purchase guns. I WANT THAT RIGHT myself!
I'm simply trying to find a reasonable compromise here. I already agreed that a tank is a big hunk of metal until a human being gets in it and turns it on, drives it and starts firing the cannon. But, these powerful weapons exist and we're wagering lives against a general responsible-minded public here. I'm simply trying to lower the body counts. I do not believe our right to buy/own firearms are at risk. But, owning M-60 machine guns and RPG's are more than firearms... they are war machines.
The "black market" comment from above notwithstanding (sorry, I don't buy that fully automatic weapons are easy to buy on the "black market"), I don't know that I have ever seen an M-60 or RPG for sale anywhere. But, I agree, they are war machines. Technically ALL firearms are war machines, but I understand what you are saying. And, while it might be fun to fire off once or twice, I don't know anyone in their right mind who would want to own an RPG. I can't imagine you'd get a lot of salvageable meat from a deer shot with one of those either.
I disagree, however, that our right to buy/own firearms are at risk. It has been at risk for many years now and every election cycle we see new politicians who would just as soon strip the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution as they would eat dinner on any given night.
Oh, and the fine citizens of DC, NY, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Chicago and California might disagree with you on how risky ownership of guns is where they live.
@uncboy10 is the resident black market expert. I mean, he says he is but he still hasn't posted his black market experience despite my asking. So I guess we just have to go on his word.
Personally, I prefer the white market. Is that racist?
Yeah because single payer healthcare provides better service at a lower cost. Its an empirical argument that's pretty hard to oppose at this point unless you just prefer to ignore facts. Publicly owned industries are not the same as government regulation of civil liberties. Not even close.
A fetus is not the same thing as a baby. You'd have to be a wacko to think otherwise. And literally not one person has advocated for taking away gun ownership entirely, so nice job proving my point about the intellectual honesty.
Man I wish the government would stop trying to take my cars away by trying to force me to get a driver's license... They couldn't possibly have any other goal than just getting rid of our right to drive altogether... duh.
Those were astoundingly easy points to refute. I'm not too worried.
Also I was referring to a very specific segment of the right. Many conservatives have sensible views on gun legislation. However some of them have bought the NRA propaganda, and make themselves look like complete idiots by arguing that there should be zero oversight of firearm purchases. I have no time for making nice with those people.
Are you expecting to get an itemized list of illegal goods I have purchased or sold? Because frankly it wouldn't surprise me if you actually were that stupid.
I can understand believing it is at risk, just to maintain a vigilance to ensure it is never removed. But, I don't think suggesting that- average citizens should get by with rifles, shotguns and handguns and leave the higher-powered weapons to the military- is even hinting at removing your right to own a firearm.The "black market" comment from above notwithstanding (sorry, I don't buy that fully automatic weapons are easy to buy on the "black market"), I don't know that I have ever seen an M-60 or RPG for sale anywhere. But, I agree, they are war machines. Technically ALL firearms are war machines, but I understand what you are saying. And, while it might be fun to fire off once or twice, I don't know anyone in their right mind who would want to own an RPG. I can't imagine you'd get a lot of salvageable meat from a deer shot with one of those either.
I disagree, however, that our right to buy/own firearms are at risk. It has been at risk for many years now and every election cycle we see new politicians who would just as soon strip the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution as they would eat dinner on any given night.
Oh, and the fine citizens of DC, NY, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Chicago and California might disagree with you on how risky ownership of guns is where they live.
If our objective is to have fewer deaths at the hands of these killers at these shootings, we have to try and come up with something. I don't trust politicians to solve anything on their own. They get bought-off too often. The lobbies use fear to gain favor for or against things. And, tragedies like Vegas are never wasted. I'm not about to stand by and let them take our right to own firearms and defend ourselves, hunt, and sport shoot. But, I also find the Soldier Of Fortune syndrome a bit extreme.
So you frequently purchase illegal items on the black market? Is that what you expect me to believe? If so, you are indeed as stupid as I always believed you to be. You're full of shit.
Keep it on that level. Avoid "idiots" and focus on their sensible views. Find some common ground. We all want to see fewer- or NO- innocent people die.
