Jump to content
Fragged

Another school shooting? Really?

Recommended Posts

Regarding PowderBlue's attempts to portray me as crazy:

 

I suppose I deserve that since I mentioned in my *deleted* comment that I thought it was lunacy for you to think that you had to carry a gun everywhere you go in the USA.

I shouldn't have posted that. I'm sorry.

 

My private road rage comment was meant to be in jest, however it is based on real research. Take a look at what carrying a gun does *statistically* to someone's behavior. Despite the NRA's best efforts there are some studies:

 

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/youth-and-guns/

 

Back to fish stuff.

Edited by Lexinverts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, you and I do agree on the background checks, I am 100 percent in agreement with you on that. Just other things agree to disagree. I'm not the guy that would give you a cold shoulder at a meeting if we were both there. Politics are rough for a lot of people but I don't eliminate friends over them. A lot of my friends have different views on a lot of things but it's life no one will ever be the same as someone else. That's what makes us human. Happy reefing man

 

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case you haven't tried it, shooting big guns is fun... m2 .50 cal, m240b, m249 saw (little), Mk19 grenade launcher, TOW missile, AT4, 25mm on a bradley...good stuff.

 

 

We could take this thread into the conspiracy theory area, I cant believe there are people out there that feel this shooting was a fake, as well as the Lanza school shooting.  Or that it is some kind of MKULTRA government mind control deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Along those lines, I am of the strong opinion that gun rights do not extend to ANY kind of weapon.

If I wanted to have a bazooka or an RPG, that would be illegal, and rightly so. I also don't think that we need the right to own an AR-15 (which is only made for killing lots of people very quickly), because it is more than you need for personal protection, hunting, etc... If it is constitutional for people to be prevented from having bazookas, it is also constitutional to draw the line at AR-15s with high capacity magazines. This doesn't mean that all weapons will be eventually banned----since we already have SOME limits.

 

 

 

You, apparently like many others, are missing the point of the 2nd amendment. The second amendment says nothing about personal protection or hunting. The 2nd amendment was, and is all about the ability of the people to deny a government the ability to rule through tyranny. When the founding fathers of this great nation wrote the constitution, the revolutionary war was recent history and fresh in their minds. If it weren't for the ability of the colonists to gather large numbers of citizens, armed with guns that were comparable to those carried by the british army, then we would very probably be living in a very different kind of culture. In fact the history of the 19th and 20th century would probably have been very different. 

 

History proves that power does in fact corrupt men. And absolute power corrupts absolutely. Without the people's ability to have checks and balances against the government, including but not exclusively the threat of rebellion in the extreme case of government oppression, then the risk of men in government becoming so power drunk that they lose the vision that they are here to serve the people, not the other way around. 

 

So before you try to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines, think about how you would want to protect yourself against a government gone power crazy, Would you want to fight with a muzzleloader musket against an fully automatic M4, or would you rather have a fighting chance with a semiautomatic AR-15 with a 30 round magazine? 

 

Just something to think about.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You, apparently like many others, are missing the point of the 2nd amendment. The second amendment says nothing about personal protection or hunting. The 2nd amendment was, and is all about the ability of the people to deny a government the ability to rule through tyranny. When the founding fathers of this great nation wrote the constitution, the revolutionary war was recent history and fresh in their minds. If it weren't for the ability of the colonists to gather large numbers of citizens, armed with guns that were comparable to those carried by the british army, then we would very probably be living in a very different kind of culture. In fact the history of the 19th and 20th century would probably have been very different. 

 

History proves that power does in fact corrupt men. And absolute power corrupts absolutely. Without the people's ability to have checks and balances against the government, including but not exclusively the threat of rebellion in the extreme case of government oppression, then the risk of men in government becoming so power drunk that they lose the vision that they are here to serve the people, not the other way around. 

 

So before you try to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines, think about how you would want to protect yourself against a government gone power crazy, Would you want to fight with a muzzleloader musket against an fully automatic M4, or would you rather have a fighting chance with a semiautomatic AR-15 with a 30 round magazine? 

 

Just something to think about.

 

What about the part about the right of owning a gun being for use in a "well-regulated militia." How many modern gun owners are members of a well-regulated militia? It is difficult to take something written in the 1700's word for word in every regard, without interpreting it within our modern reality. Of course that is not easy to do, and we have the Supreme Court for help in this regard.

 

Regarding the fight against tyranny argument: In order for me to adequately protect myself from our military, I don't think an AR-15 would cut it. Do you? I would want to have a tank in my garage and a bazooka, etc... I do not and should not have the right to be keeping military weapons like that.

 

Clearly the second amendment must have some limits.

Edited by Lexinverts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the part about the right of owning a gun being for use in a "well-regulated militia." How many modern gun owners are members of a well-regulated militia? It is difficult to take something written in the 1700's word for word in every regard, without interpreting it within our modern reality. Of course that is not easy to do, and we have the Supreme Court for help in this regard.

 

Regarding the fight against tyranny argument: In order for me to adequately protect myself from our military, I don't think an AR-15 would cut it. Do you? I would want to have a tank in my garage and a bazooka, etc... I do not and should not have the right to be keeping military weapons like that.

 

Clearly the second amendment must have some limits.

 

Lex, you missed the point. What I wrote shows she spirit of the second amendment. Obviously we all can't, and shouldn't keep tanks, TOW missiles, Bazooka's, which by the way are yesterdays anti-tank technology, and other types of "military type" weapons. the AR-15 is NOT a military weapon. It is a semi-automatic cousin of the now antiquated M-16 assault rifle.

 

As far as being a member of a well regulated militia,  well militia groups in the US today are almost exclusively regarded by the government as right wing domestic terrorist groups. So why would anybody want to be a member of a group that is under constant surveillance by the government, and being suspected to be a terrorist? This would obviously violate other constitutional rights such as the ability to freely travel between states, at least by most forms of commercial transportation. When the american revolution was gathering troops to fight the British, they weren't gathering militia members for the most part, they were gathering ordinary citizens who saw the British government for the tyrants that they were and were willing to stand up for themselves and their neighbors freedom.

 

The Supreme court, as it is today, has taken too much power for its self as well. The Supreme Court was never meant to legislate. Its sole purpose was to interpret the constitution, as you said, in the context of modern reality. More and more the Supreme Court has been legislating through litigation. 

 

Look, I'm not some gun toting loon. I'm not some anti-government conspiracy theorist. I'm simply an United States citizen who believes in the constitution and that the powers of the federal government have been allowed to extend far beyond what the constitution allows. The constitution clearly states that all powers not explicitly granted the federal government are reserved to the states.  

 

What happened in Roseburg was clearly a tragedy. The mere fact that people have such disregard for human life is appalling. I'm sure that had the shooter not been killed, he would have been sequestered off into some federal psych ward because some lawyer would have claimed that he was mentally incompetent. Maybe we need to go back to the days when murders were hung in the town square for all to see. Maybe then potential criminals would think twice about committing such horrific acts. Right now, so few real criminals are punished in a way that is a deterrent for others. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Randy, you countered my argument that guns need to have a reasonable purpose for personal safety, hunting etc...in your post by saying "The second amendment says nothing about personal protection or hunting."

 

I responded by saying, "ok" if we are to take the second amendment word for word and not try to read into its intent, then we should also respect that the second amendment literally says the right of guns exists so that people may use them within a "well-regulated militia."

 

You cannot tell me that I shouldn't look for "intent" in the second amendment and then do the same thing yourself.

 

Saying that the M-16 is outdated, and therefore so is the AR-15 is outdated is missing the point (so are lots of dangerous military weapons). This gun was designed with only one purpose in mind---killing lots of people quickly. We need to ask ourselves if the average citizen has that need, especially in light of how they are repeatedly being used in mass killings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You misunderstood me. I was pointing to the intent on the second amendment, but the literal word for word reading. The intent was to check government power and give the citizens an avenue to resist government oppression.

 

Can you show me real proof that the AR-15 is used more in mass shootings than any other weapon?

 

In fact, according to the latest FYI crime reporting statistics, fists are more likely to be used to kill you than a gun of any kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Randy, you countered my argument that guns need to have a reasonable purpose for personal safety, hunting etc...in your post by saying "The second amendment says nothing about personal protection or hunting."

 

I responded by saying, "ok" if we are to take the second amendment word for word and not try to read into its intent, then we should also respect that the second amendment literally says the right of guns exists so that people may use them within a "well-regulated militia."

 

You cannot tell me that I shouldn't look for "intent" in the second amendment and then do the same thing yourself.

 

Saying that the M-16 is outdated, and therefore so is the AR-15 is outdated is missing the point (so are lots of dangerous military weapons). This gun was designed with only one purpose in mind---killing lots of people quickly. We need to ask ourselves if the average citizen has that need, especially in light of how they are repeatedly being used in mass killings.

An AR is a semi auto. You do understand its not even close to the military specs. Its no different then hand gun or semi riffle. If it was auto then you'd have a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An AR is a semi auto. You do understand its not even close to the military specs. Its no different then hand gun or semi riffle. If it was auto then you'd have a point.

But it is black and has ridged edges so it has to be worse.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it is black and has ridged edges so it has to be worse.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's black and has ridged edges and can accept a 100 round drum, like the one James Holmes brought to the theater in Aurora. It's not something most people need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need 30 round mags when I'm target shooting at 300 yards. Do you know how frustrating it is to replace mags every 5 pulls of the trigger?!

 

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You misunderstood me. I was pointing to the intent on the second amendment, but the literal word for word reading. The intent was to check government power and give the citizens an avenue to resist government oppression.

 

Can you show me real proof that the AR-15 is used more in mass shootings than any other weapon?

 

In fact, according to the latest FYI crime reporting statistics, fists are more likely to be used to kill you than a gun of any kind.

 

Randy, as I said, if the intent of the second amendment was for the citizens to be armed to the degree necessary to keep the US military at bay, then we should all have bazookas and RPGs. Obviously, that is not what most people want.

 

Furthermore, it appears that the intent of the founding fathers was for the weaponry of the citizens to be "well-regulated." I don't think anyone would say that guns are well-regulated in this country.

 

I can't show you proof the AR-15s are used more often in *mass* shootings, but common sense tells me that if they are they can do more damage in a shorter period of time than less powerful weapons that don't accept high capacity magazines. We know that Adam Lanza obliterated the front door of Sandy Hook with his AR. Perhaps he could have used a shot gun to do the same thing.

 

Not sure where you are going with the "fists" comment. Protecting people from physical violence is not controversial. For some reason, trying to protect people from gun violence is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Randy, as I said, if the intent of the second amendment was for the citizens to be armed to the degree necessary to keep the US military at bay, then we should all have bazookas and RPGs. Obviously, that is not what most people want.

 

 

Well that funny cuz back when the 2nd amendment was written the people had the same guns the military had.

Edited by Blackice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's black and has ridged edges and can accept a 100 round drum, like the one James Holmes brought to the theater in Aurora. It's not something most people need.

You do realize that you can buy a 100 rd drum for pistols, .22 caliber rifle( just in case you're unfamiliar with the caliber that's a child's gun) and a hunting rifle as well as the AR platform

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone wants to ban guns and im just over here like 7883f64e5a32f757d3c34961f13b10d5.jpg

 

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

Didn't really feel like dragging the collection out of the safe for a new photo opp. This was our last gun day. 746c3856b4a3d386f7cb4f3e875ad587.jpg

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize that you can buy a 100 rd drum for pistols, .22 caliber rifle( just in case you're unfamiliar with the caliber that's a child's gun) and a hunting rifle as well as the AR platform

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope, I didn't know that you could for a pistol. What would that look like? I can't imagine that would be very easy to use.

 

I also know that a powerful rifle like an AR and a 30, 50 or 100 round magazine will allow someone to fire that many bullets as fast as they can pull the trigger that many times. If that is something our society thinks belongs in the hands of civilians, then I guess we'll have to live with the consequences.

 

Perhaps states like Colorado with limits on magazine sizes have the best policy in this regard.

Edited by Lexinverts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lexi if you're curious only 4 of those are the AR kind the other 56 are their safer counterparts

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Thanks so much for pointing that out. It's tough to have discussions about really complicated things like guns with smart guys like you. Thanks for your help.

Edited by Lexinverts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah there is all kind of stuff like this for all kinds of different gun and it's funny none of the military use these cuz there unreliable and are heavy and awkward they are just range toys that's all.

 

one of my buddies bought a 32 round mag for his Glock and within 10 shots the new magazine jammed so in theory you would be safer with somebody with extended mag and somebody with the normal size mag with 17 shots. And I'm over here like man that sucks bro my m&P shoots like a dream every time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His MySpace account was found and it had a major Islam terrorist supporter as one of his MySpace friends.

 

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

Edited by PowderBlue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×