Your Weekly Mass Shooting

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Here's the thing, I accept that there is evil in the world and there is no way to ever stop things like this from happening. Reasonable limits? Yep, I'm all for them. And that's crux of my question above. California has a LOT of "reasonable limits" on buying guns, how many more can you come up with?




We already HAVE a system just like this in place - they're called background checks. What irritates me most is the parroting of stupid ideas like this. One person comes up with the "clever" thought that we don't let these people fly, we shouldn't let them buy guns and without any consideration of the legalities you have 200,000 monkeys parroting the same clever idea. And 99% of the time those are the same monkeys that are all about constitutional rights in any other situation but when it comes to guns it's "fuck those hillbillies they don't deserve the same rights as we do".

So what I'm reading is that you're stance is maintain the status quo and accept that this is gonna happen once a week indefinitely.

That's fine. I mean if that's your stance here then I'd rather you just say that. There's no reason to be shy about it on this anonymous message board.

If that's not the case, then tell me what you want to change. Don't tell me about why other people's ideas are wrong. Tell me your ideas.

I'm seeing that you're ready to define my "stance" how about yours? What is your stance? What is your solution? It's amazing that you seem to know the answer on "this anonymous message board" that has eluded mankind for centuries - how to eradicate evil.

Can't edit... To force everyone else (through threat of violence) to surrender their information to an entity of individuals who've demonstrated a desire for power over others... is what not only makes us uncomfortable, but is morally wrong.

You're more than welcome to surrender that information to them if it makes you feel more comfortable. But to send guys with guns to threaten everyone else with violence if they don't comply and give them the information to end up on their list is what I'm objecting to.

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

So what I'm reading is that you're stance is maintain the status quo and accept that this is gonna happen once a week indefinitely.

That's fine. I mean if that's your stance here then I'd rather you just say that. There's no reason to be shy about it on this anonymous message board.

If that's not the case, then tell me what you want to change. Don't tell me about why other people's ideas are wrong. Tell me your ideas.

I'm seeing that you're ready to define my "stance" how about yours? What is your stance? What is your solution? It's amazing that you seem to know the answer on "this anonymous message board" that has eluded mankind for centuries - how to eradicate evil.

You're not turning this around. I asked you a question first. We can talk about me after if you really want.

Of course, I can't possibly agree with you because all you do is tell people they are wrong. You offer nothing in the way of what to do. Which leads me to maybe think you just want to maintain the status quo. So, I guess that's something but I'm just asking, is that what you want out of this or not?

Assault rifles.

Is it possible not to sell them?

NigelUno wrote:Assault rifles.

Is it possible not to sell them?

It's possible not to sell anything.

xsanguine wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I"m all for freedom - for instance, I believe the innocent people murdered yesterday should be free to live their lives today.

crazy thought, right?

Yeah but you're strawmanning the argument I'm making. Everyone, besides murderers, believes everyone should be allowed to "freedom" to live.

You're not really saying anything with that statement, Bob.

I still love you, though. Long tyme.

it's semantics... some people believe in an unlimited arsenal of assault rifles in the name of "freedom".. some people believe in other people's right to live in the name of "freedom"...

oh - and I'm back from running. Thanks for your thoughts and prayers during such a difficult time.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

I'm seeing that you're ready to define my "stance" how about yours? What is your stance? What is your solution? It's amazing that you seem to know the answer on "this anonymous message board" that has eluded mankind for centuries - how to eradicate evil.

You're not turning this around. I asked you a question first. We can talk about me after if you really want.

Of course, I can't possibly agree with you because all you do is tell people they are wrong. You offer nothing in the way of what to do. Which leads me to maybe think you just want to maintain the status quo. So, I guess that's something but I'm just asking, is that what you want out of this or not?

This guy is nailing it.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Yeah but you're strawmanning the argument I'm making. Everyone, besides murderers, believes everyone should be allowed to "freedom" to live.

You're not really saying anything with that statement, Bob.

I still love you, though. Long tyme.

it's semantics... some people believe in an unlimited arsenal of assault rifles in the name of "freedom".. some people believe in other people's right to live in the name of "freedom"...

oh - and I'm back from running. Thanks for your thoughts and prayers during such a difficult time.

Well if someone disagrees with either of those statements they are not truly interested in freedom... they're being selective.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

NigelUno wrote:Assault rifles.

Is it possible not to sell them?

my thoughts and prayers are with you as you suggest that we establish limits on freedom in America.

xsanguine wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:it's semantics... some people believe in an unlimited arsenal of assault rifles in the name of "freedom".. some people believe in other people's right to live in the name of "freedom"...

oh - and I'm back from running. Thanks for your thoughts and prayers during such a difficult time.

Well if someone disagrees with either of those statements they are not truly interested in freedom... they're being selective.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

of course..

it's like the "pro life" wing of the republican party supporting the death penalty.. and an unlimited, unregulated gun industry. The hypocrisy, though astounding, is very predictable.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

NigelUno wrote:Assault rifles.

Is it possible not to sell them?

my thoughts and prayers are with you as you suggest that we establish limits on freedom in America.

Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but it seems to be a military grade weapon designed to kill a lot of people during warfare. As such, it probably doesn't have a usefulness as a gun purchased by the general public.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Well if someone disagrees with either of those statements they are not truly interested in freedom... they're being selective.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

of course..

it's like the "pro life" wing of the republican party supporting the death penalty.. and an unlimited, unregulated gun industry. The hypocrisy, though astounding, is very predictable.

So you're equating an unregulated firearm to the death penalty? Aren't there a few steps missing between owning a gun without regulations and killing a convicted criminal?

NigelUno wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:my thoughts and prayers are with you as you suggest that we establish limits on freedom in America.

Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but it seems to be a military grade weapon designed to kill a lot of people during warfare. As such, it probably doesn't have a usefulness as a gun purchased by the general public.

Maybe, maybe not. But why does it's perceived usefulness matter?

What right do you have to determine what someone else may possess based on whether you perceive it to be useful to them or not?

xsanguine wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:of course..

it's like the "pro life" wing of the republican party supporting the death penalty.. and an unlimited, unregulated gun industry. The hypocrisy, though astounding, is very predictable.

So you're equating an unregulated firearm to the death penalty? Aren't there a few steps missing between owning a gun without regulations and killing a convicted criminal?

I'm just saying that, in my mind, you're either "pro life" or you're not. I mean, what would jesus think?

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

So you're equating an unregulated firearm to the death penalty? Aren't there a few steps missing between owning a gun without regulations and killing a convicted criminal?

I'm just saying that, in my mind, you're either "pro life" or you're not. I mean, what would jesus think?

I never met the guy. I did work roofing once with a Jesus... he waas a fantastic individual and a great co-worker but we didn't get into any political discussions.

I'm pro-choice. I think you should have the option, so long as you're not initiating force on another individual(s) you should be free to do or own as you please. I don't think that's unreasonable and is a pretty neutral position. Do you, Bob?

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
You're not turning this around. I asked you a question first. We can talk about me after if you really want.

Of course, I can't possibly agree with you because all you do is tell people they are wrong. You offer nothing in the way of what to do. Which leads me to maybe think you just want to maintain the status quo. So, I guess that's something but I'm just asking, is that what you want out of this or not?

I love how you feel free to set parameters on what I can day or do. I gave you my answer but you were too busy preparing to argue to see it. Let me separate it for you.

You're asking me for a solution to evil. There is no solution to evil. To even presume that you or I have an answer to evil is unbridled arrogance.

There's my answer. Now I await your solution to evil.

xsanguine wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but it seems to be a military grade weapon designed to kill a lot of people during warfare.  As such, it probably doesn't have a usefulness as a gun purchased by the general public.  

Maybe, maybe not. But why does it's perceived usefulness matter?

What right do you have to determine what someone else may possess based on whether you perceive it to be useful to them or not?

What do you mean...Maybe, maybe not?  Is it designed for something other than killing a lot of people?

xsanguine wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I'm just saying that, in my mind, you're either "pro life" or you're not. I mean, what would jesus think?

I never met the guy. I did work roofing once with a Jesus... he waas a fantastic individual and a great co-worker but we didn't get into any political discussions.

I'm pro-choice. I think you should have the option, so long as you're not initiating force on another individual(s) you should be free to do or own as you please. I don't think that's unreasonable and is a pretty neutral position. Do you, Bob?

I'm very pro-life. Both at conception, on death row and staring down the barrel of a gun. I think every life has value.

controversial, I know.

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
You're not turning this around. I asked you a question first. We can talk about me after if you really want.

Of course, I can't possibly agree with you because all you do is tell people they are wrong. You offer nothing in the way of what to do. Which leads me to maybe think you just want to maintain the status quo. So, I guess that's something but I'm just asking, is that what you want out of this or not?

I love how you feel free to set parameters on what I can day or do. I gave you my answer but you were too busy preparing to argue to see it. Let me separate it for you.

You're asking me for a solution to evil. There is no solution to evil. To even presume that you or I have an answer to evil is unbridled arrogance.

There's my answer. Now I await your solution to evil.

I'm not setting any parameters. I'm asking you a question, and it's pretty straight forward. So, it sounds like your plan is to not try to do anything then in the face of evil? Are we pretty clear on that? I'm seriously just trying to be straight forward about that.

I'm seriously not trying to get all hostile like you are. I'm just being blunt. Your answer is "do nothing and accept our fate." Correct? I'll give you some thoughts once we clear that up.

Also, I don't expect anyone here to have a perfect answer. A) because there probably isn't one and B) it's way above all of our pay grades.

NigelUno wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Maybe, maybe not. But why does it's perceived usefulness matter?

What right do you have to determine what someone else may possess based on whether you perceive it to be useful to them or not?

What do you mean...Maybe, maybe not?  Is it designed for something other than killing a lot of people?

Maybe it's useful to them, maybe it isn't... who are you to decide for them?

I believe the manufacturers designed it to be an effective tool in the art of war, some are designed to be effective at hunting, others are more effective for target practice and some others are designed for defense. I guess we'd have to get specific about which "military grade weapon" we're discussing.

A Barrett sniper rifle? M16? AR-15?

Are you going to tie in how its design somehow gives you the right to determine what someone else may possess?

NigelUno wrote:Assault rifles.

Is it possible not to sell them?

Define an assault rifle? Oh I see you tried later in this thread...

NigelUno wrote:Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but it seems to be a military grade weapon designed to kill a lot of people during warfare. As such, it probably doesn't have a usefulness as a gun purchased by the general public.

How is a media defined "assault weapon" more dangerous than a "regular" weapon?

The answer is that they're not. They aren't machine guns. They aren't automatic weapons. They shoot smaller bullets. They shoot less lethal bullets. Someday people will get that term unlodged from their lizard brains, it was a LIE created to pass gun control legislation. Would you believe that if it came from the New York Times and not me???

The Assault Weapon Myth

OVER the past two decades, the majority of Americans in a country deeply divided over gun control have coalesced behind a single proposition: The sale of assault weapons should be banned.

That idea was one of the pillars of the Obama administration’s plan to curb gun violence, and it remains popular with the public. In a poll last December, 59 percent of likely voters said they favor a ban.

But in the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference.

It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.

In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows.

It was much the same in the early 1990s when Democrats created and then banned a category of guns they called “assault weapons.”

Or perhaps this article is better at defining categories:

MILLER: The assault weapon myth Obama, Feinstein and allies use fear mongering to push gun-grabbing agenda

The best illustration of this deception is Mrs. Feinstein’s placing of the “Armalite M15 22LR Carbine” on her list of items that she claims have the sole purpose “to hold at the hip if possible, to spray fire to be able to kill large numbers.” This particular weapon fires a .22 long rifle cartridge, which has one-tenth the power of the standard military round and is generally suited for plinking tin cans or hunting small varmints. It simply looks like a military rifle, which fits Mrs. Feinstein’s effort to eliminate items that look scary to her.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I never met the guy. I did work roofing once with a Jesus... he waas a fantastic individual and a great co-worker but we didn't get into any political discussions.

I'm pro-choice. I think you should have the option, so long as you're not initiating force on another individual(s) you should be free to do or own as you please. I don't think that's unreasonable and is a pretty neutral position. Do you, Bob?

I'm very pro-life. Both at conception, on death row and staring down the barrel of a gun. I think every life has value.

controversial, I know.

Yeah I'm not a fan of the death penalty and not a fan of murdering people.

Do you believe there's a lot of people that are pro-choice with regards to murdering people? And how does that tie in with the conversation at hand?

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
I'm not setting any parameters. I'm asking you a question, and it's pretty straight forward. So, it sounds like your plan is to not try to do anything then in the face of evil? Are we pretty clear on that? I'm seriously just trying to be straight forward about that.

I'm seriously not trying to get all hostile like you are. I'm just being blunt. Your answer is "do nothing and accept our fate." Correct? I'll give you some thoughts once we clear that up.

Also, I don't expect anyone here to have a perfect answer. A) because there probably isn't one and B) it's way above all of our pay grades.

You make that sound as if nothing is being done now which is of course untrue.   What you're really asking is how much MORE I think should be done.  So your entire "do nothing" statement is a falsehood since it presumes that at this point in time nothing is being done to prevent these attacks.  

There has to be a balance between doing "something" and doing "too much", if you think we're not doing enough then you need to support politicians that believe suspension of due process, free speech and warrantless searches.   I'm certain then we would be doing "more" and you'd feel better about things.  I wouldn't, I don't think trading away most of my rights is worth the very small incremental boost in safety we might gain.

xsanguine wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

What do you mean...Maybe, maybe not?  Is it designed for something other than killing a lot of people?

Maybe it's useful to them, maybe it isn't... who are you to decide for them?

I believe the manufacturers designed it to be an effective tool in the art of war, some are designed to be effective at hunting, others are more effective for target practice and some others are designed for defense. I guess we'd have to get specific about which "military grade weapon" we're discussing.

A Barrett sniper rifle? M16? AR-15?

Are you going to tie in how its design somehow gives you the right to determine what someone else may possess?

We're on the same page. Remember "the Brady Bill" - they outlawed by name and styling a few hundred weapons. The manufacturers simply changed a feature and voila it's a "legal" weapon.

It is possible to legally own and buy a fully automatically weapon but they are incredibly expensive to purchase and you have to let the feds crawl up your ass to get one.

AR-15 is "scary looking" but really underpowered.
The only people buying Barretts have a shitload of money and they aren't climbing up a tower at the University of Texas.
The M1 Garand is probably the finest weapon the United States ever produced and a great man killer you don't see them bitching about that gun.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I'm seriously not trying to get all hostile like you are.

And BTW fragile flower, please point out where I was being hostile to you.

xsanguine wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

What do you mean...Maybe, maybe not?  Is it designed for something other than killing a lot of people?

Maybe it's useful to them, maybe it isn't... who are you to decide for them?

I believe the manufacturers designed it to be an effective tool in the art of war, some are designed to be effective at hunting, others are more effective for target practice and some others are designed for defense. I guess we'd have to get specific about which "military grade weapon" we're discussing.

A Barrett sniper rifle? M16? AR-15?

Are you going to tie in how its design somehow gives you the right to determine what someone else may possess?

Assault rifles are designed for hunting? Like...deer?

I'm talking about military grade weapons with multiple shot capability. Those are designed for hunting?

Loose sucks. He doesn't give a fuck about how to stop this. He just likes to argue for guns. Same bullshit over and over.

Let's talk about how assault rifles are misidentified or how knives should be banned. Haven't seen this before. Weeeeee!

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
I'm not setting any parameters. I'm asking you a question, and it's pretty straight forward. So, it sounds like your plan is to not try to do anything then in the face of evil? Are we pretty clear on that? I'm seriously just trying to be straight forward about that.

I'm seriously not trying to get all hostile like you are. I'm just being blunt. Your answer is "do nothing and accept our fate." Correct? I'll give you some thoughts once we clear that up.

Also, I don't expect anyone here to have a perfect answer. A) because there probably isn't one and B) it's way above all of our pay grades.

You make that sound as if nothing is being done now which is of course untrue.   What you're really asking is how much MORE I think should be done.  So your entire "do nothing" statement is a falsehood since it presumes that at this point in time nothing is being done to prevent these attacks.  

There has to be a balance between doing "something" and doing "too much", if you think we're not doing enough then you need to support politicians that believe suspension of due process, free speech and warrantless searches.   I'm certain then we would be doing "more" and you'd feel better about things.  I wouldn't, I don't think trading away most of my rights is worth the very small incremental boost in safety we might gain.

Well, that's why I was originally said "maintain the status quo" instead of "do nothing" but you were resisting talking about what you think instead of focusing on other people's opinions, so I sort of changed it. So those sentences about "do nothing" I know what you are saying and that's what I meant.

It sounds though like you're thinking is that the only options out there are "get rid of all guns" or don't. I dunno, I mean it basically sounds like you're saying just maintain the status quo and change nothing. Which is fine, I mean, I think you're wrong. But I just think that it's important for people who are going to have these conversations to be pretty clear about what they are advocating for instead of constantly telling others they are wrong and offering nothing of their own opinions.

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I'm seriously not trying to get all hostile like you are.

And BTW fragile flower, please point out where I was being hostile to you.

I thought your post sounded a bit aggressive. Sorry if I misunderstood that. Relax spaz.

LooseGoose wrote:

NigelUno wrote:Assault rifles.

Is it possible not to sell them?

Define an assault rifle? Oh I see you tried later in this thread...

NigelUno wrote:Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but it seems to be a military grade weapon designed to kill a lot of people during warfare. As such, it probably doesn't have a usefulness as a gun purchased by the general public.

How is a media defined "assault weapon" more dangerous than a "regular" weapon?

The answer is that they're not. They aren't machine guns. They aren't automatic weapons. They shoot smaller bullets. They shoot less lethal bullets. Someday people will get that term unlodged from their lizard brains, it was a LIE created to pass gun control legislation. Would you believe that if it came from the New York Times and not me???

The Assault Weapon Myth

OVER the past two decades, the majority of Americans in a country deeply divided over gun control have coalesced behind a single proposition: The sale of assault weapons should be banned.

That idea was one of the pillars of the Obama administration’s plan to curb gun violence, and it remains popular with the public. In a poll last December, 59 percent of likely voters said they favor a ban.

But in the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference.

It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.

In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows.

It was much the same in the early 1990s when Democrats created and then banned a category of guns they called “assault weapons.”

Or perhaps this article is better at defining categories:

MILLER: The assault weapon myth Obama, Feinstein and allies use fear mongering to push gun-grabbing agenda

The best illustration of this deception is Mrs. Feinstein’s placing of the “Armalite M15 22LR Carbine” on her list of items that she claims have the sole purpose “to hold at the hip if possible, to spray fire to be able to kill large numbers.” This particular weapon fires a .22 long rifle cartridge, which has one-tenth the power of the standard military round and is generally suited for plinking tin cans or hunting small varmints. It simply looks like a military rifle, which fits Mrs. Feinstein’s effort to eliminate items that look scary to her.

Bob linked something earlier about a bill which would close a loophole in the no fly list. Are you in favor of that bill passing?

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Loose sucks. He doesn't give a fuck about how to stop this. He just likes to argue for guns. Same bullshit over and over.

Let's talk about how assault rifles are misidentified or how knives should be banned. Haven't seen this before. Weeeeee!

lol, tell me how you would stop it? Amazing you feel free to insult my lack of solutions while offering none yourself.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Maybe it's useful to them, maybe it isn't... who are you to decide for them?

I believe the manufacturers designed it to be an effective tool in the art of war, some are designed to be effective at hunting, others are more effective for target practice and some others are designed for defense. I guess we'd have to get specific about which "military grade weapon" we're discussing.

A Barrett sniper rifle? M16? AR-15?

Are you going to tie in how its design somehow gives you the right to determine what someone else may possess?

We're on the same page. Remember "the Brady Bill" - they outlawed by name and styling a few hundred weapons. The manufacturers simply changed a feature and voila it's a "legal" weapon.

It is possible to legally own and buy a fully automatically weapon but they are incredibly expensive to purchase and you have to let the feds crawl up your ass to get one.

AR-15 is "scary looking" but really underpowered.
The only people buying Barretts have a shitload of money and they aren't climbing up a tower at the University of Texas.
The M1 Garand is probably the finest weapon the United States ever produced and a great man killer you don't see them bitching about that gun.

I'll be honest I've never owned a firearm so my experience with different ones is limited. My experience with them outside of just being around family who owns them is a few tries at target practice with rifles when I was younger. But even though I haven't found a need to have them doesn't mean I think I or anyone else should be the arbiter of what others own, as you said.

I'm thinking of joining a sportsman's club around here now that I've moved back to MI (GR area). I'd like to at least become relatively proficient.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Loose sucks. He doesn't give a fuck about how to stop this. He just likes to argue for guns. Same bullshit over and over.

Let's talk about how assault rifles are misidentified or how knives should be banned. Haven't seen this before. Weeeeee!

I don't think we're ever going to stop violence, broheim. It's kind of been a constant throughout human history... although we've never had as much peace and prosperity as we do now.

24 hour news is enjoyable for us political/social issues junkies... but it wreaks havoc on the psyche of individuals who "feel" things are falling apart when really they've always been far worse.

NigelUno wrote:Bob linked something earlier about a bill which would close a loophole in the no fly list. Are you in favor of that bill passing?

It's not a loophole in the no fly list. It's a proposal by gun control advocates to use the no fly list as a resource to keep people from buying guns. These are the same people that have in the past hated the "no fly list" for it's inaccuracies. As I've posted here 2-3 times this would involve completely stripping people of due process rights as they would be denied gun ownership without ever being arrested, tried or convicted - yet I'm the unAmerican one for opposing it?

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Loose sucks. He doesn't give a fuck about how to stop this. He just likes to argue for guns. Same bullshit over and over.

Let's talk about how assault rifles are misidentified or how knives should be banned. Haven't seen this before. Weeeeee!

I know a married couple that both carry concealed guns for their protection (which is fine...that is their right).

Wife in the car with the kids, husband forgets his gun, goes back in the house to get it, and somehow shoots a hole in their kitchen ceiling.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Loose sucks. He doesn't give a fuck about how to stop this. He just likes to argue for guns. Same bullshit over and over.

Let's talk about how assault rifles are misidentified or how knives should be banned. Haven't seen this before. Weeeeee!

I think those of us who are just so pissed off at the shootings are looked at as wanting to ban guns. I personally feel there is something we can do to help this. I am not smart enough to come up with an answer. I don't get why we haven't empowered a huge senate panel or put together members of our society in the field of psychiatry sociology, also members of the business world, those who are libertarians and those who believe the constitution should be amended.

In Loose's defense i don't know he's such a gun nut as he believes it's a slippery slope to start taking rights away that are given to us. Maybe I'm wrong. We categorize a ton of people who seem to be gun nuts without logic, but a lot of them are civil liberty people.

I get tired of these threads. None of us have an answer, except knee jerk answers. I also don't think anyone is happy this shit happens. I believe we need to treat this as a Manhattan Project type thing though. It's that serious.

@CNBCnow: JUST IN: Pres. Obama sends thoughts, prayers to those killed in San Bernardino, says spoke w/ mayor, thanked him for managing situation

Thoughts and prayers are with Rob as he reads this tweet.

NigelUno wrote:[Assault rifles are designed for hunting? Like...deer?
I'm talking about military grade weapons with multiple shot capability. Those are designed for hunting?

There are many guns defined as "assault weapons" that I wouldn't hunt deer with - because they're not powerful enough.

MOST hunting weapons are multiple shot. A solid percentage are semi automatic. Almost all are more powerful than "assault weapons".

LooseGoose wrote:

NigelUno wrote:Bob linked something earlier about a bill which would close a loophole in the no fly list. Are you in favor of that bill passing?

It's not a loophole in the no fly list. It's a proposal by gun control advocates to use the no fly list as a resource to keep people from buying guns. These are the same people that have in the past hated the "no fly list" for it's inaccuracies. As I've posted here 2-3 times this would involve completely stripping people of due process rights as they would be denied gun ownership without ever being arrested, tried or convicted - yet I'm the unAmerican one for opposing it?

Did I say you were un-American?

And aren't those people being denied rights by not letting them fly?

It seems you're kind of dancing around it a little bit.

NigelUno wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Maybe it's useful to them, maybe it isn't... who are you to decide for them?

I believe the manufacturers designed it to be an effective tool in the art of war, some are designed to be effective at hunting, others are more effective for target practice and some others are designed for defense. I guess we'd have to get specific about which "military grade weapon" we're discussing.

A Barrett sniper rifle? M16? AR-15?

Are you going to tie in how its design somehow gives you the right to determine what someone else may possess?

Assault rifles are designed for hunting? Like...deer?

I'm talking about military grade weapons with multiple shot capability. Those are designed for hunting?

"Multiple shot capability"? You would ban semi-automatic weapons?

That means only bolt action rifles, lever action shotguns and revolvers would be legal under that proviso.