Bumbo
New member
Symantecs
Banning, Infringing, all roads lead to the same place.
The true goals of any type of gun control, is to literally remove them from our society. They don't care about law abiding gun owners.
Florida School Shooting
- Thread starter simple
- Start date
- Status
Symantecs
Banning, Infringing, all roads lead to the same place.
The true goals of any type of gun control, is to literally remove them from our society. They don't care about law abiding gun owners.
hikenbike
New member
Symantecs
Banning, Infringing, all roads lead to the same place.
The true goals of any type of gun control, is to literally remove them from our society. They don't care about law abiding gun owners.
Ah........you’re delusional. Literally. “They” should take your gun, smack you over the head with it, and hand it back to you.
Go ahead and defend your delusions while the killings of CHILDREN pile up. Be proud of your zero contribution and ridiculous fears.
You and those like you are laughable.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Off-choader
New member
we know who is delusional here bruh, he is defending the constitution...
Again Nice france NO firearms so he gets in a truck and kills more than florida shooting and vegas combined.. injures 400+
killers gonna kill its a sad fact of life, Should we lay down and accept it ? nah. but we also won’t let you use it to push a silly gun control agenda that has been proven time and time again a failure
Last edited:
hikenbike
New member
That’s helpful. I feel changed. How are you not running this show? You have all the answers. Endless wisdom.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Bumbo
New member
[MENTION=96581]hikenbike[/MENTION] My comments were to address your lack of understanding for the Bill of rights, and its impact to the rest of the Bill and our way of life.
I’m not some far right wack job, I am also not some emotional knee jerk left person who won’t entertain an argument for the other side. I’m looking at this logically as someone who didn’t grow up in a gun household, but understands the need for firearms in our society.
I already said I am all for better checks and balance when it comes to ownership. I think background checks are great, I also think if you were ever convicted of a felony , domestic violence, or violent crime, then you should not own guns.
The problem with all this gun control, is all the laws they keep making, keep attacking the guns themselves, NOT the actual problem. Everyone screams for better gun control, but all the legislators do is create feel good measures that don’t do jack for anyone. Go blame the law makers for being shit at their jobs. They write laws for things they don’t understand at all, and we ALL pay for it.
I already mentioned that anytime it comes to enforcing the things you want, they can’t afford to do it.. Who is paying for these annual background checks you want? I think you underestimate the cost, and the volume of firearm owners.
In the last 5 years in CA, they have banned so many handguns via the “safe” handgun roster, blatant infringement and extortion to the manufactures. Made it impossible for anything that is newly manufactured to be purchased. Banned the AR-15 (which didn’t work by the way) still selling like hot cakes today, reduced magazine capacity, and not one thing to actually address the problem of mental health.
All these laws created an underground market for firearms… People from other states might like to know this… you can’t buy a new model Glock off a store shelf for $500. But you can find a nice police officer who is exempt, and he would be glad to sell you one for $1000-1500.
They even opened registration for the AR ban so existing owners don’t become overnight felons, and the CA DOJ couldn’t even handle the applicant volume. They ended up saying F-it and extended the deadline, after it was signed into law the year before.
Every time something happens, they make some feel good laws and throw them on the books and don’t address the problem. The only people who are paying for it are law abiding gun owners.
It’s very difficult for you to understand it, because you literally never see the impact of the laws themselves.
I’m not some far right wack job, I am also not some emotional knee jerk left person who won’t entertain an argument for the other side. I’m looking at this logically as someone who didn’t grow up in a gun household, but understands the need for firearms in our society.
I already said I am all for better checks and balance when it comes to ownership. I think background checks are great, I also think if you were ever convicted of a felony , domestic violence, or violent crime, then you should not own guns.
The problem with all this gun control, is all the laws they keep making, keep attacking the guns themselves, NOT the actual problem. Everyone screams for better gun control, but all the legislators do is create feel good measures that don’t do jack for anyone. Go blame the law makers for being shit at their jobs. They write laws for things they don’t understand at all, and we ALL pay for it.
I already mentioned that anytime it comes to enforcing the things you want, they can’t afford to do it.. Who is paying for these annual background checks you want? I think you underestimate the cost, and the volume of firearm owners.
In the last 5 years in CA, they have banned so many handguns via the “safe” handgun roster, blatant infringement and extortion to the manufactures. Made it impossible for anything that is newly manufactured to be purchased. Banned the AR-15 (which didn’t work by the way) still selling like hot cakes today, reduced magazine capacity, and not one thing to actually address the problem of mental health.
All these laws created an underground market for firearms… People from other states might like to know this… you can’t buy a new model Glock off a store shelf for $500. But you can find a nice police officer who is exempt, and he would be glad to sell you one for $1000-1500.
They even opened registration for the AR ban so existing owners don’t become overnight felons, and the CA DOJ couldn’t even handle the applicant volume. They ended up saying F-it and extended the deadline, after it was signed into law the year before.
Every time something happens, they make some feel good laws and throw them on the books and don’t address the problem. The only people who are paying for it are law abiding gun owners.
It’s very difficult for you to understand it, because you literally never see the impact of the laws themselves.
Last edited:
Off-choader
New member
lawwwwwl you think i care if i change your mind ? bruh Stay unarmed and afraid of guns i prefer you not to ever touch one
Last edited:
Gunslinger-13
New member
The issue seems simple: See a problem, fix the problem.
And as reasonable, intelligent and rational people we always assume we can fix almost any problem. Sadly criminal misuse of firearms isn't one of them, especially if you try and approach it from the "firearm" part of the equation.
We need to recognize that those with a specific agenda to disarm US citizens are actually a minority. There are the Feinsteins, McCarthy's and Boxers who have built their entire careers around the issue but mainstream America isn't really behind them. The typical "reasonable American" doesn't want to ban guns...BUT they also don't want to be shot and much more importantly they don't want their kids to be shot. This is of course entirely reasonable, we also don't wish to be shot and we most certainly wouldn't want our kids to be shot.
So we have a natural impulse to consider "reasonable gun control" efforts that might prevent such things. Just one problem, they don't work. If gun control "worked" it would have been solved the first time we tried it and more importantly laws against shooting innocent people, especially children would also be preventing such tragedies.
Even more absurd are laws that seek to differentiate "good guns" from "bad guns" as if being shot by a deer rifle is in any way preferable to being shot by an AR-15.
Back in the 1920s the streets roared with the sound of the Tommy Gun. Gangsters ran major cities and profits from prohibited alcohol purchased corruption in all areas of enforcement and even Joe Kennedy managed to earn enough for a political career for himself and his sons. In 1934 we passed a gun control measure that put guns such as the Thompson, BAR and sawed off shotguns out of the reach of the average citizen. Did it solve the problem of 1930s gangsters? Not really, the Commission formed from the Five Families was still going strong and the mafia dominated organized crime well until the 1970s. Not surprisingly, they still could get Thompsons and any other machine gun anytime they wanted.
The late 1960s and early 70s were a powder keg of revolutionary violence. Groups like the SLA, Black Panthers, The Weather Underground and other marxist inspired militant groups regularly shot it out with the police on the streets. SWAT was created for the specific purpose of dealing with these extremist groups who often employed select fire weapons despite the 1934 NFA. These incidents and several high profile political assassinations led to the 1968 Gun Control Act. And while it may have ended mail order firearms, it certainly did not end criminal misuse of firearms by organized crime or radical political activists.
Small caliber handguns with short barrels may have been banned from importation (which is why you can't get a .380 Glock) by the 68 GCA but that hardly stopped gun violence in the 60s and 70s, especially in urban areas with a booming narcotics trade. The heroin dealers seemed to have little difficulty finding a means of protecting their product, profits and enforcing their territorial boundaries despite existing bans.
By the early 1980s cocaine had largely replaced heroin and the cocaine cowboys of the "Scarface era" much preferred the Ingram Mac-10 to any low powered .380 import handgun. As the $200 NFA tax wasn't as cost prohibitive as it was in the 1930s an amendment to close the machine gun registry was duly added to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 as a "reasonable restriction" to address gun violence. Despite the fact that by 1986 not a single incident of criminal misuse involving a NFA weapon existed (this would change in the late 1980s when a off duty LEO shot a man with a registered machine gun that he found in bed with his wife) the closing of the registry became law with the passage of FOPA.
For organized crime, cocaine dealers and LA gangs it was business as usual and they discovered they could import Uzis and AK-47s as easily as a kilo of cocaine. Despite the fact that the domestic machine gun ban found within FOPA (a machine gun ban regulating imports was part of the 68 GCA) seemed to have little or no impact on criminals, that didn't prevent then Drug Czar William Bennett from declaring that "only drug dealers use semi automatic weapons like HK-91s and FN FALs" so they were promptly banned by Executive Order in 1989. This of course actually changed nothing as criminals continued to obtain unregistered Uzis as easily as they obtained cocaine.
There is perhaps no better example of the futility of these efforts as the North Hollywood Bank Robbery where two bank robbers took on the LAPD with an HK91 modified to select fire and AK-47s that were either illegally imported full autos or modified semi autos almost a decade later in 1997. Laws regarding importation and illegal modification to select fire didn't prevent that incident any more than laws against bank robbery and murder prevented those things from happening.
But despite the obvious, politicians still keep trying to find a way to prevent these incidents by regulating inanimate objects that they believed, or simply tried to convince others to believe, facilitated these kinds of crime and that the problem could be controlled if only the specific firearms in question could be controlled.
So with the problem still unsolved Bill Clinton signed into law the domestic Assault Weapon Ban which came with a ban on high capacity magazines for a period of 10 years starting in 1994.
Not only did it fail to prevent the North Hollywood Bank Robbery and shootout it also did not prevent the Columbine shooting in 1999, the DC snipers in 2002 nor did it prevent any other significant criminal misuse according to FBI statistics.
And it still seems that not only politicians, but even some gun owners, remain unable to figure out that you can't control crime by controlling an object. Otherwise we wouldn't have an illicit drug problem. People also can't seem to figure out that simply denying a gun to a violent person doesn't make them safe. Violent people will always find ways to do violence, the BTK Killer, Danny Rolling, Jeffery Dahmer, Richard Ramirez and John Gacy managed quite well without firearms let alone semi automatic assault rifles and high caps. And while the Zodiak Killer and David Richard Berkowitz were known to use firearms, they were the kind deemed socially acceptable in the form of a revolver.
So there is NO reasonable restriction be it Saturday Night Specials, sawed off shotguns, street sweepers, tommy guns, semi automatic assault rifles, cheap military surplus or sniper rifles. If you took us all the way back to muzzle loading flintlocks criminals would still misuse them and obtain illegal "regulated" firearms. The only people who would actually be "regulated" are those law abiding individuals who by definition are not the problem. The end result is potential victims are those who lose access to the best means of defending themselves and their families. These are exactly the people who NEED the advantage of modern firearms to attempt to counter the determination of violent criminals.
As a result gun owners need to STOP making these "reasonable concessions" because they didn't work the first time they were tried and they haven't ever worked.
Now some will say the unique situation of school shootings (which most believe started as a new phenomenon with Columbine) create a special need situation. But really that isn't true either. School shootings are hardly new. The earliest known school shooting was July 26, 1764 and the list is quite comprehensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States
Furthermore Sandy Hook still isn't the worst school massacre, that is still the Bath School Massacre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
No guns were involved and 38 elementary school children and six adults were killed, at least 58 other people were injured. This happened on May 18, 1927 and all because Andrew Kehoe, the 55-year-old school board treasurer, was angry after his defeat in the spring 1926 election for township clerk.
So what do we do?
First we stop making concessions that do nothing and we tell people why. Email everyone the list of school shootings that starts in 1764 and continues on through the 1800s and then through every decade despite ongoing efforts to regulate killers through inanimate objects.
Second we stop with the notion that we must "meet in the middle" concerning our rights and instead focus on taking back what has been lost. In the last 20 years many states have made tremendous strides with respect to conceal carry laws and castle doctrine laws and we have watched crime rates adjust accordingly. We need to focus our efforts on eliminating the "sporter clause" of the 1968 Gun Control Act which allows politicians a "qualifier" never mentioned in the Constitution regarding what is a "civilian acceptable" firearm.
And lastly we need to start looking for better ways to control violent people in our society, especially those who would kill us and our children if given the opportunity. Because taking "our guns" simply isn't fixing it.
And as reasonable, intelligent and rational people we always assume we can fix almost any problem. Sadly criminal misuse of firearms isn't one of them, especially if you try and approach it from the "firearm" part of the equation.
We need to recognize that those with a specific agenda to disarm US citizens are actually a minority. There are the Feinsteins, McCarthy's and Boxers who have built their entire careers around the issue but mainstream America isn't really behind them. The typical "reasonable American" doesn't want to ban guns...BUT they also don't want to be shot and much more importantly they don't want their kids to be shot. This is of course entirely reasonable, we also don't wish to be shot and we most certainly wouldn't want our kids to be shot.
So we have a natural impulse to consider "reasonable gun control" efforts that might prevent such things. Just one problem, they don't work. If gun control "worked" it would have been solved the first time we tried it and more importantly laws against shooting innocent people, especially children would also be preventing such tragedies.
Even more absurd are laws that seek to differentiate "good guns" from "bad guns" as if being shot by a deer rifle is in any way preferable to being shot by an AR-15.
Back in the 1920s the streets roared with the sound of the Tommy Gun. Gangsters ran major cities and profits from prohibited alcohol purchased corruption in all areas of enforcement and even Joe Kennedy managed to earn enough for a political career for himself and his sons. In 1934 we passed a gun control measure that put guns such as the Thompson, BAR and sawed off shotguns out of the reach of the average citizen. Did it solve the problem of 1930s gangsters? Not really, the Commission formed from the Five Families was still going strong and the mafia dominated organized crime well until the 1970s. Not surprisingly, they still could get Thompsons and any other machine gun anytime they wanted.
The late 1960s and early 70s were a powder keg of revolutionary violence. Groups like the SLA, Black Panthers, The Weather Underground and other marxist inspired militant groups regularly shot it out with the police on the streets. SWAT was created for the specific purpose of dealing with these extremist groups who often employed select fire weapons despite the 1934 NFA. These incidents and several high profile political assassinations led to the 1968 Gun Control Act. And while it may have ended mail order firearms, it certainly did not end criminal misuse of firearms by organized crime or radical political activists.
Small caliber handguns with short barrels may have been banned from importation (which is why you can't get a .380 Glock) by the 68 GCA but that hardly stopped gun violence in the 60s and 70s, especially in urban areas with a booming narcotics trade. The heroin dealers seemed to have little difficulty finding a means of protecting their product, profits and enforcing their territorial boundaries despite existing bans.
By the early 1980s cocaine had largely replaced heroin and the cocaine cowboys of the "Scarface era" much preferred the Ingram Mac-10 to any low powered .380 import handgun. As the $200 NFA tax wasn't as cost prohibitive as it was in the 1930s an amendment to close the machine gun registry was duly added to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 as a "reasonable restriction" to address gun violence. Despite the fact that by 1986 not a single incident of criminal misuse involving a NFA weapon existed (this would change in the late 1980s when a off duty LEO shot a man with a registered machine gun that he found in bed with his wife) the closing of the registry became law with the passage of FOPA.
For organized crime, cocaine dealers and LA gangs it was business as usual and they discovered they could import Uzis and AK-47s as easily as a kilo of cocaine. Despite the fact that the domestic machine gun ban found within FOPA (a machine gun ban regulating imports was part of the 68 GCA) seemed to have little or no impact on criminals, that didn't prevent then Drug Czar William Bennett from declaring that "only drug dealers use semi automatic weapons like HK-91s and FN FALs" so they were promptly banned by Executive Order in 1989. This of course actually changed nothing as criminals continued to obtain unregistered Uzis as easily as they obtained cocaine.
There is perhaps no better example of the futility of these efforts as the North Hollywood Bank Robbery where two bank robbers took on the LAPD with an HK91 modified to select fire and AK-47s that were either illegally imported full autos or modified semi autos almost a decade later in 1997. Laws regarding importation and illegal modification to select fire didn't prevent that incident any more than laws against bank robbery and murder prevented those things from happening.
But despite the obvious, politicians still keep trying to find a way to prevent these incidents by regulating inanimate objects that they believed, or simply tried to convince others to believe, facilitated these kinds of crime and that the problem could be controlled if only the specific firearms in question could be controlled.
So with the problem still unsolved Bill Clinton signed into law the domestic Assault Weapon Ban which came with a ban on high capacity magazines for a period of 10 years starting in 1994.
Not only did it fail to prevent the North Hollywood Bank Robbery and shootout it also did not prevent the Columbine shooting in 1999, the DC snipers in 2002 nor did it prevent any other significant criminal misuse according to FBI statistics.
And it still seems that not only politicians, but even some gun owners, remain unable to figure out that you can't control crime by controlling an object. Otherwise we wouldn't have an illicit drug problem. People also can't seem to figure out that simply denying a gun to a violent person doesn't make them safe. Violent people will always find ways to do violence, the BTK Killer, Danny Rolling, Jeffery Dahmer, Richard Ramirez and John Gacy managed quite well without firearms let alone semi automatic assault rifles and high caps. And while the Zodiak Killer and David Richard Berkowitz were known to use firearms, they were the kind deemed socially acceptable in the form of a revolver.
So there is NO reasonable restriction be it Saturday Night Specials, sawed off shotguns, street sweepers, tommy guns, semi automatic assault rifles, cheap military surplus or sniper rifles. If you took us all the way back to muzzle loading flintlocks criminals would still misuse them and obtain illegal "regulated" firearms. The only people who would actually be "regulated" are those law abiding individuals who by definition are not the problem. The end result is potential victims are those who lose access to the best means of defending themselves and their families. These are exactly the people who NEED the advantage of modern firearms to attempt to counter the determination of violent criminals.
As a result gun owners need to STOP making these "reasonable concessions" because they didn't work the first time they were tried and they haven't ever worked.
Now some will say the unique situation of school shootings (which most believe started as a new phenomenon with Columbine) create a special need situation. But really that isn't true either. School shootings are hardly new. The earliest known school shooting was July 26, 1764 and the list is quite comprehensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States
Furthermore Sandy Hook still isn't the worst school massacre, that is still the Bath School Massacre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
No guns were involved and 38 elementary school children and six adults were killed, at least 58 other people were injured. This happened on May 18, 1927 and all because Andrew Kehoe, the 55-year-old school board treasurer, was angry after his defeat in the spring 1926 election for township clerk.
So what do we do?
First we stop making concessions that do nothing and we tell people why. Email everyone the list of school shootings that starts in 1764 and continues on through the 1800s and then through every decade despite ongoing efforts to regulate killers through inanimate objects.
Second we stop with the notion that we must "meet in the middle" concerning our rights and instead focus on taking back what has been lost. In the last 20 years many states have made tremendous strides with respect to conceal carry laws and castle doctrine laws and we have watched crime rates adjust accordingly. We need to focus our efforts on eliminating the "sporter clause" of the 1968 Gun Control Act which allows politicians a "qualifier" never mentioned in the Constitution regarding what is a "civilian acceptable" firearm.
And lastly we need to start looking for better ways to control violent people in our society, especially those who would kill us and our children if given the opportunity. Because taking "our guns" simply isn't fixing it.
Rightside Up
New member
BrianSD_42
New member
Symantecs
Banning, Infringing, all roads lead to the same place.
The true goals of any type of gun control, is to literally remove them from our society. They don't care about law abiding gun owners. I guess this means Off-choader is safe in the pot after all.
:50cal:
So it turns out the boiling frog fable is just that, a myth that isn't true
I'm guilty of this reference myself but I figure it is best to point it out fair and square. This is a completely bullsh$t idea. No, frogs will not allow themselves to be boiled.
Don't believe me ... check out The Atlantic.
The boiled-frog myth: stop the lying now!
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2006/09/the-boiled-frog-myth-stop-the-lying-now/7446/
:50cal:
Last edited:
HA! Your reply makes my point. Thanks!
Gunslinger-13
New member
Just read an interesting article over at zerohedge.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...wners-debunked
"When tragedy strikes it is understandable that people get emotional. But they often forget that the media knows how to pull the heartstrings for nefarious reasons. If a media campaign looks coordinated, it probably is. We should never let the emotions they trigger override our logic, and threaten our safety.
And we shouldn’t let whole groups be punished for the crimes of individuals. Nothing that one person does can justify assaulting or stealing from an entirely different individual. That type of thinking is what leads to violence and prejudice against whole races, religions, and nationalities."
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...wners-debunked
"When tragedy strikes it is understandable that people get emotional. But they often forget that the media knows how to pull the heartstrings for nefarious reasons. If a media campaign looks coordinated, it probably is. We should never let the emotions they trigger override our logic, and threaten our safety.
And we shouldn’t let whole groups be punished for the crimes of individuals. Nothing that one person does can justify assaulting or stealing from an entirely different individual. That type of thinking is what leads to violence and prejudice against whole races, religions, and nationalities."
96RedRunner
Senior Member
In 2017, with 300,000,000-plus guns in the hands of Americans, there were 15,549 gun deaths. This ranks less than half the number of automobile deaths even though there are fewer cars in existence than guns. In 2017, there were 253,000,000 cars in existence and 41,000 auto deaths.
I say we ban cars, where is the out cry for all of the auto deaths.
Both require an operator, put the blame where it belongs.
If gun ownership was the problem we would know it.
I say we ban cars, where is the out cry for all of the auto deaths.
Both require an operator, put the blame where it belongs.
If gun ownership was the problem we would know it.
Last edited:
jordanrb81
New member
[MENTION=122184]Gunslinger-13[/MENTION] how come you still haven't answered my question or explained my bias regarding CCW... which should be interesting considering I myself carry. or did you actually do the research you encouraged me to do (which of course I had done before commenting) and discover that I was 100% correct?
Also I found that list about school shootings too and would contest columbine was the first real shooting of it's kind. the 1764 for one for example was a native American tribe reacting to basically a turf war, hardly the same as a student born "attack from within" so while technically a school shooting and I am sure devastating to those impacted I would call shenanigans on an apples to apples comparison. also most if not all of the shootings on the list before columbine were at a minimum perpetrated by faculty not students. the issue of teenagers shooting up schools as well as its frequency seems to have most certainly turned a significant and dark corner in 1999.
Also I found that list about school shootings too and would contest columbine was the first real shooting of it's kind. the 1764 for one for example was a native American tribe reacting to basically a turf war, hardly the same as a student born "attack from within" so while technically a school shooting and I am sure devastating to those impacted I would call shenanigans on an apples to apples comparison. also most if not all of the shootings on the list before columbine were at a minimum perpetrated by faculty not students. the issue of teenagers shooting up schools as well as its frequency seems to have most certainly turned a significant and dark corner in 1999.
LandCruiser
New member
Irrelevant.
That's already outlined in form 4473.
People who are dangerously mentally ill are not allowed to own guns.
We already have these laws.
simple
Senior Member
Snopes is legit. And no, it wasn't.
LandCruiser
New member
Snopes is a left leaning "fact check" site endorsed by Obama to be a yardstick of what is real and fake news and run by a pornographer/whoremonger, his obese (ex)wife, a cat, and liberal interns butthurt over the 2016 election results.
-JD-
New member
Right. So reality is restrictions do exist so it's not a question of whether or not they should exist but where you draw the line.
What about people who have been under federal investigation? Or those with a history of violent crimes?
simple
Senior Member
Sweet, thanks for educating me. What's a non-leaning factual site that you fact check shit with? Or is twitter it?
LandCruiser
New member
Once again, that's all outlined in form 4473. If convicted, they can't own firearms.
We don't have a gun problem, we have an enforcement of existing laws problem.
- Status
