Your Weekly Mass Shooting

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?

Yep, as some of the more gun savvy guys have indicated AR-15's (the ones used in this most recent shooting) are perfectly suited for coyote hunting due to being able to get off multiple rounds more quickly than say a bolt action rifle. They're smaller caliber, I believe... so those ones aren't quite as powerful... but practically any firearm is going to kill most living beings.

I wouldn't want to take an AR-15 in .223 calibre hunting bear, though. You'd need something more powerful. Stranger things have happened, though... a guy about a year ago got a lucky strike against a bear that was mauling him with his bowie knife. Hit him right in the perfect spot in its neck. Pretty impressive.

DWags wrote: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'm far from what would normally be called a "gun nut".

I have hunted all my life - started with my Dad at age 8.
I do not own a single gun at this point in my life.
I've NEVER been a member of the NRA or any gun group for that matter.
In in the interest of honesty I do have a gun in my house, a double barrel 12ga "coach" gun.

I simply do not believe in voluntarily surrendering the rights our forefathers died to obtain. I know to some that sounds like a crazy thing but it is what it is. If you want to forfeit your rights, feel free - I plan to fight to keep mine.

I have a second now, I might not in a bit, so I'll post this now because I know eventually goose will want me to answer the same question I asked him, and that's fair.

Here's the thing. I dunno. I don't know what to do about guns. But, I think it's a long term conversation. No matter what anyone does, that part of it isn't going to change in the short term. I do wish people didn't think that a gun was some right that they should fight to the death for, but they do and I don't think that will change. So, basically, no idea.

However. I do think there are changes that can be made that can have immediate impacts, and it all centers around funding mental health. Again, I'm not going to pretend to be a psychologist who knows how to fix someone's brain. But that's why they are the psychologist and I'm not. What I can tell you definitively is that we aren't giving them the resources that they need to do the job, and worse yet we are constantly CUTTING funding when we need to be increasing it dramatically, however we have to pay for it.

Earlier in the fall the state cut funding for community mental health in Ingham County, and the result was that 250 patients could no longer be taken care of there. (I'm not looking up the articles for you, it might have been 350. Being conservative and going with the lower end number though.) so, what happens if one of those people goes on one of these rampages? We're all going to get together and say "nothing could have been done to stop this. Thoughts and prayers." But that's bs. We could have stopped cutting funding. We need to invest in this dramatically underfunded aspect of our society. It's not an option to continue cutting. And I'm not sitting here playing politics saying "oh this party is the one that is causing the cuts" frankly I don't really give a fuck. Whoever is doing things like that needs to stop and if we all need to chip in a couple of bucks a year to stop doing that then everyone should sack up and do it.

NigelUno wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

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.

The argument is that flying is a privilege not a Constitutionally enumerated right like bearing arms.

Let alone that the list is shitbag of names including infants, United States Senators and other innocent people. Let alone that they have never explained how names get on the list.

Additionally, there is no due process associated with the "no fly" list and even if you are listed on that you still have to go through the various background checks to purchase a firearm.

LooseGoose wrote:

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".

It seems you are getting caught up in semantics.

Do a lot of hunters use automatic assault rifle military grade weapons when hunting?

NigelUno wrote: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.

I'm not dancing around it at all, I didn't bring it up. I think the entire "Patriot" Act, the TSA and the No Fly list is bullshit. We were buffaloed after 9/11 into giving away huge amounts of our rights. Never let a crisis go to waste. Which is exactly the purpose of this mass shooting "crisis", use it to strip more rights from the citizens with their permission. Murders have plummeted by 50% but we now have a crisis? Good lord, people don't think about things.

NigelUno wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

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".

It seems you are getting caught up in semantics.

Do a lot of hunters use automatic assault rifle military grade weapons when hunting?

Are you even reading my answers or do you just like to use the word semantics? NO ONE hunts with automatic weapons, as Doc explained earlier they're nearly impossible to obtain and prohibitively expensive. And very few people hunt using media/politician defined "assault rifles" because they're NOT POWERFUL enough.

NigelUno wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

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".

It seems you are getting caught up in semantics.

Do a lot of hunters use automatic assault rifle military grade weapons when hunting?

I don't believe so. There's not a lot of them out there so naturally not many peoplel use them for any purpose...

Here's a list of what's required to get a military grade weapon...


You need to be eligible to possess firearms in general.
You must live in a state where NFA items are permitted and machine guns, specifically, are legal to possess.
The machine gun you wish to acquire must have been manufactured on or before May 19, 1986. That is the cutoff date for entries to be made in the NFRTR (National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record), the registry of all NFA items in the United States including machine guns.
You must locate a Class III dealer (FFL01+SOT) that sells or can transfer in the machine gun you wish to acquire in your state of residence.
You must purchase the machine gun upfront prior to transfer and have it shipped to your Class III dealer. For a full-auto M16, this will be anywhere from $12,000 and up. Typical prices for an M16 hover around $14,000 to $16,000.
Once purchased and with your dealer, the dealer will fill out the Form 4 application on your behalf to submission to the BATFE and collect your $200 NFA transfer stamp tax.
The application will be submitted. Now you wait 8+ months for the full FBI background check and BATFE processing to complete.
Once the Form 4 is processed, it will be returned to the dealer along with the tax stamp which is part of your paperwork. You can then take possession of your military grade fully automatic firearm and take it home.
The tax stamp must be kept with the firearm it belongs to at all times! The tax stamp is your only affirmative defense to prove you are not in possession of an illegal machine gun. The tax stamp is proof you paid the transfer tax and legally transferred the machine gun. Ranges that allow Class III will want to see the stamp. If you get pulled over and the gun is discovered/inspected, law enforcement will definitely want to see it too. You may be required to present the firearm for inspection on demand by the BATFE.
You may not transport the fully automatic firearm across state lines for any purpose without prior consent of the Federal government. You must request this in advance and provide details on where the firearm is going, when you are leaving and when it will return to its registered location of residence.
You cannot leave the presence of your fully automatic firearm. If someone else is shooting it, you must be with it, legally speaking. The one exception to this is if you have formed a legal trust for the purpose of possessing the firearm, in which case all beneficiaries of the trust (usually family or employees) may have access to the firearm.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I have a second now, I might not in a bit, so I'll post this now because I know eventually goose will want me to answer the same question I asked him, and that's fair.

Here's the thing. I dunno. I don't know what to do about guns. But, I think it's a long term conversation. No matter what anyone does, that part of it isn't going to change in the short term. I do wish people didn't think that a gun was some right that they should fight to the death for, but they do and I don't think that will change. So, basically, no idea.

However. I do think there are changes that can be made that can have immediate impacts, and it all centers around funding mental health. Again, I'm not going to pretend to be a psychologist who knows how to fix someone's brain. But that's why they are the psychologist and I'm not. What I can tell you definitively is that we aren't giving them the resources that they need to do the job, and worse yet we are constantly CUTTING funding when we need to be increasing it dramatically, however we have to pay for it.

Earlier in the fall the state cut funding for community mental health in Ingham County, and the result was that 250 patients could no longer be taken care of there. (I'm not looking up the articles for you, it might have been 350. Being conservative and going with the lower end number though.) so, what happens if one of those people goes on one of these rampages? We're all going to get together and say "nothing could have been done to stop this. Thoughts and prayers." But that's bs. We could have stopped cutting funding. We need to invest in this dramatically underfunded aspect of our society. It's not an option to continue cutting. And I'm not sitting here playing politics saying "oh this party is the one that is causing the cuts" frankly I don't really give a fuck. Whoever is doing things like that needs to stop and if we all need to chip in a couple of bucks a year to stop doing that then everyone should sack up and do it.

Guess what? We agree on something.

I think the majority of mass shootings are done by the mentally ill and we've been emptying institutions out now since the 60s. It's now very hard to get someone into a mental facility - why? Because they have RIGHTS - so here's the craziness that is America today.

We don't commit loonies because they have rights.
The loonies kill people using guns.
We use that as a reason to strip rights from law abiding citizens.

Makes all the sense in the world to a liberal.

NigelUno wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

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".

It seems you are getting caught up in semantics.

Do a lot of hunters use automatic assault rifle military grade weapons when hunting?

Well no since by definition military grade rifles have some sort of fully automatic (full auto or burst mode) capability.

Now the US military also issues .45 Cal semi auto pistols but hunting with a pistol is rarely done.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

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.

The argument is that flying is a privilege not a Constitutionally enumerated right like bearing arms.

Let alone that the list is shitbag of names including infants, United States Senators and other innocent people. Let alone that they have never explained how names get on the list.

Additionally, there is no due process associated with the "no fly" list and even if you are listed on that you still have to go through the various background checks to purchase a firearm.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

How do you interpret that?

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

It seems you are getting caught up in semantics.

Do a lot of hunters use automatic assault rifle military grade weapons when hunting?

Well no since by definition military grade rifles have some sort of fully automatic (full auto or burst mode) capability.

Now the US military also issues .45 Cal semi auto pistols but hunting with a pistol is rarely done.

That's a good point. I was assuming he meant "assault" style weapons. But yes... if he's referring to any "military grade" weapon then that's going to encompass a lot more firearms that are relatively benign and wouldn't be useful to someone looking to take out dozens of people at a rock concert.

NigelUno wrote:

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

The argument is that flying is a privilege not a Constitutionally enumerated right like bearing arms.

Let alone that the list is shitbag of names including infants, United States Senators and other innocent people. Let alone that they have never explained how names get on the list.

Additionally, there is no due process associated with the "no fly" list and even if you are listed on that you still have to go through the various background checks to purchase a firearm.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

How do you interpret that?

The scribblings of slaveowners from past centuries.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:love how the right wing patriotic gun enthusiasts prefer not to "politicize" events such as this.. instead, let's offer "thoughts and prayers"..

David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog 46m46 minutes ago
Oh great, another right wing nutjob offering up his stupid "thoughts and prayers" #thoughtsandprayers

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

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I have a second now, I might not in a bit, so I'll post this now because I know eventually goose will want me to answer the same question I asked him, and that's fair.

Here's the thing. I dunno. I don't know what to do about guns. But, I think it's a long term conversation. No matter what anyone does, that part of it isn't going to change in the short term. I do wish people didn't think that a gun was some right that they should fight to the death for, but they do and I don't think that will change. So, basically, no idea.

However. I do think there are changes that can be made that can have immediate impacts, and it all centers around funding mental health. Again, I'm not going to pretend to be a psychologist who knows how to fix someone's brain. But that's why they are the psychologist and I'm not. What I can tell you definitively is that we aren't giving them the resources that they need to do the job, and worse yet we are constantly CUTTING funding when we need to be increasing it dramatically, however we have to pay for it.

Earlier in the fall the state cut funding for community mental health in Ingham County, and the result was that 250 patients could no longer be taken care of there. (I'm not looking up the articles for you, it might have been 350. Being conservative and going with the lower end number though.) so, what happens if one of those people goes on one of these rampages? We're all going to get together and say "nothing could have been done to stop this. Thoughts and prayers." But that's bs. We could have stopped cutting funding. We need to invest in this dramatically underfunded aspect of our society. It's not an option to continue cutting. And I'm not sitting here playing politics saying "oh this party is the one that is causing the cuts" frankly I don't really give a fuck. Whoever is doing things like that needs to stop and if we all need to chip in a couple of bucks a year to stop doing that then everyone should sack up and do it.

Guess what? We agree on something.

I think the majority of mass shootings are done by the mentally ill and we've been emptying institutions out now since the 60s. It's now very hard to get someone into a mental facility - why? Because they have RIGHTS - so here's the craziness that is America today.

We don't commit loonies because they have rights.
The loonies kill people using guns.
We use that as a reason to strip rights from law abiding citizens.

Makes all the sense in the world to a liberal.

Well, i don't think it's really a matter of locking up the scary people and being done with it. Again, not a psychologist and I'm not going to pretend to be. All I'm saying is that cutting funding and releasing people from treatment who need it because "we don't have money for it" is flat out unacceptable and isn't true. We have the money, but people will cry when their taxes go up by a dollar to cover something like that.

We can't continue saying "it's a mental health problem" then not doing anything about it. That's what needs to change.

LooseGoose wrote:

NigelUno wrote: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.

I'm not dancing around it at all, I didn't bring it up.   I think the entire "Patriot" Act, the TSA and the No Fly list is bullshit.  We were buffaloed after 9/11 into giving away huge amounts of our rights.   Never let a crisis go to waste.  Which is exactly the purpose of this mass shooting "crisis", use it to strip more rights from the citizens with their permission.  Murders have plummeted by 50% but we now have a crisis?   Good lord, people don't think about things.

I don't think I've given away huge amounts of my rights.  But, maybe that's just me.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

It seems you are getting caught up in semantics.

Do a lot of hunters use automatic assault rifle military grade weapons when hunting?  

Well no since by definition military grade rifles have some sort of fully automatic (full auto or burst mode) capability.

Now the US military also issues .45 Cal semi auto pistols but hunting with a pistol is rarely done.

I'm new at this whole gun argument.

I'm just wondering if it would make sense to limit sales of fully automatic military grade rifles.  And what the opposition would be to that?  Other than the standard "right to bear arms".

Bob is good at this stuff. Bob? Get back in here.

NigelUno wrote:

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

The argument is that flying is a privilege not a Constitutionally enumerated right like bearing arms.

Let alone that the list is shitbag of names including infants, United States Senators and other innocent people. Let alone that they have never explained how names get on the list.

Additionally, there is no due process associated with the "no fly" list and even if you are listed on that you still have to go through the various background checks to purchase a firearm.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

How do you interpret that?

The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.

1. Operative Clause.

a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment ’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body

2. Prefatory Clause.

The prefatory clause reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State … .”

a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939) , explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”

NigelUno wrote:

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

Well no since by definition military grade rifles have some sort of fully automatic (full auto or burst mode) capability.

Now the US military also issues .45 Cal semi auto pistols but hunting with a pistol is rarely done.

I'm new at this whole gun argument.

I'm just wondering if it would make sense to limit sales of fully automatic military grade rifles.  And what the opposition would be to that?  Other than the standard "right to bear arms".

Bob is good at this stuff. Bob? Get back in here.

\
As explained earlier in this thread the sale of fully automatic weapons are severely limited and have been since 1986.

xsanguine wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote: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?

I don't know about how a lot of pro-choice people might be okay with others getting murdered.. but it seems like most "pro life" people are the ones who are okay with people getting murdered... they tend to be the "thoughts and prayers" folks.

it ties in because it's life. That's the way I see it.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

How do you interpret that?

The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.

1. Operative Clause.

a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment ’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body

2. Prefatory Clause.

The prefatory clause reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State … .”

a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939) , explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”

OK. I was kind of asking if you thought the whole well regulated Militia part was kind of being forgotten (as a way to protect from the British). Did the Supreme Court rule the government could establish laws on what kinds of guns people could own?

Bob? Help me out here.

NigelUno wrote:I'm new at this whole gun argument. I'm just wondering if it would make sense to limit sales of fully automatic military grade rifles.  And what the opposition would be to that?  Other than the standard "right to bear arms".
.

That was done in 1934.

DWags wrote:

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.

the NRA doesn't seem to mind - in fact, they profit from it. As do the "thoughts and prayers" legislators.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

I'm new at this whole gun argument.

I'm just wondering if it would make sense to limit sales of fully automatic military grade rifles.  And what the opposition would be to that?  Other than the standard "right to bear arms".

Bob is good at this stuff. Bob? Get back in here.

\
As explained earlier in this thread the sale of fully automatic weapons are severely limited and have been since 1986.

Well...that's BS!!! I want one.

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:love how the right wing patriotic gun enthusiasts prefer not to "politicize" events such as this.. instead, let's offer "thoughts and prayers"..

David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog 46m46 minutes ago
Oh great, another right wing nutjob offering up his stupid "thoughts and prayers" #thoughtsandprayers

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

right - Obama is a religious kook - I've been saying that all along. Religion is in large part what's wrong with the world - Obama is no different.

Thanks for posting this.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:the NRA doesn't seem to mind - in fact, they profit from it. As do the "thoughts and prayers" legislators.

You seem to be locked into the NRA thing, as if it's their fault we've been struck by terrorists. Don't believe me....take a look at this meeting, think Obama called those people in for a shooting?

Mark Knoller ‏@markknoller 50m50 minutes ago
Pres Obama at end of meeting with national security team including AG, FBI Dir, NSA, VP, Homeland Security Advisor.



So this is now America, we get struck by terrorists and the 1st thing the left wants to talk about is disarming OUR citizens. Yep, makes all the sense in the world to me.

NigelUno wrote:

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.

1. Operative Clause.

a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment ’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body

2. Prefatory Clause.

The prefatory clause reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State … .”

a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939) , explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”

OK. I was kind of asking if you thought the whole well regulated Militia part was kind of being forgotten (as a way to protect from the British). Did the Supreme Court rule the government could establish laws on what kinds of guns people could own?

Bob? Help me out here.

Well the government has established what sort of plants and plant materials you may own, also... they've assumed control over a great many things individuals can do, own, etc. It's ironic considering we're supposed to be a nation founded on freedom and liberty.

NigelUno wrote:

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.

1. Operative Clause.

a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment ’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body

2. Prefatory Clause.

The prefatory clause reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State … .”

a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939) , explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”

OK. I was kind of asking if you thought the whole well regulated Militia part was kind of being forgotten (as a way to protect from the British). Did the Supreme Court rule the government could establish laws on what kinds of guns people could own?

Bob? Help me out here.

I'm not a legal scholar - I just know that the NRA and a lot/most of the Republican party don't mind mass shootings. It allows them to promote their sick and twisted agenda while screeching about "freedom" and patriotism.

and, as I've said consistently, the NRA laughs all the way to the bank as they prey on the intellectually vulnerable sheep.

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:the NRA doesn't seem to mind - in fact, they profit from it. As do the "thoughts and prayers" legislators.

You seem to be locked into the NRA thing, as if it's their fault we've been struck by terrorists. Don't believe me....take a look at this meeting, think Obama called those people in for a shooting?

Mark Knoller ‏@markknoller 50m50 minutes ago
Pres Obama at end of meeting with national security team including AG, FBI Dir, NSA, VP, Homeland Security Advisor.



So this is now America, we get struck by terrorists and the 1st thing the left wants to talk about is disarming OUR citizens. Yep, makes all the sense in the world to me.

makes sense to me too.

LooseGoose wrote:

NigelUno wrote:I'm new at this whole gun argument. I'm just wondering if it would make sense to limit sales of fully automatic military grade rifles.  And what the opposition would be to that?  Other than the standard "right to bear arms".
.

That was done in 1934.

OK.

I'm curious. What is your stance on letting Syrian refugees into the US?

xsanguine wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

OK. I was kind of asking if you thought the whole well regulated Militia part was kind of being forgotten (as a way to protect from the British). Did the Supreme Court rule the government could establish laws on what kinds of guns people could own?

Bob? Help me out here.

Well the government has established what sort of plants and plant materials you may own, also... they've assumed control over a great many things individuals can do, own, etc. It's ironic considering we're supposed to be a nation founded on freedom and liberty.

I can't even paint my house without getting the color approved.

NigelUno wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

That was done in 1934.

OK.

I'm curious. What is your stance on letting Syrian refugees into the US?

I am very opposed to Syrian refugees.

However, once they're here, I think they should all own assault rifles.

NigelUno wrote:

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.

1. Operative Clause.

a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment ’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body

2. Prefatory Clause.

The prefatory clause reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State … .”

a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939) , explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”

OK. I was kind of asking if you thought the whole well regulated Militia part was kind of being forgotten (as a way to protect from the British). Did the Supreme Court rule the government could establish laws on what kinds of guns people could own?

Bob? Help me out here.

Yes SCOTUS rules in Heller that it was Unconstitutional to ban handguns.

It is legal for a civilian to own a fully automatic weapon in the United States it's just a giant pain in the ass.

Additionally it is legal to a weapon (manufactured pre 1899) without going through a ton of red tape. However these vintage firearms (and some were full auto) can be incredibly expensive.

So if you have a spare 50 grand lining around you could pick yourself up a sweet Gatling gun.

NigelUno wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Well the government has established what sort of plants and plant materials you may own, also... they've assumed control over a great many things individuals can do, own, etc. It's ironic considering we're supposed to be a nation founded on freedom and liberty.

I can't even paint my house without getting the color approved.

the NRA and Republican party would like you to be patient and they'll provide you with your very own bucket of "blood red" paint, courtesy of mass shootings.

LooseGoose wrote:Here's a serious question, yet I seriously expect no answers because empty rhetoric is so much easier. So far it's been determined that at least one of the weapons used was purchased legally in California a state with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. What additional "sensible" gun laws would you suggest beyond those in place in California?

I've copied most of a Reason magazine article enumerating those laws as a reference for you.

Okay, see? In the state with the most restrictive gun laws in the country, someone was still able to legally get an assault weapon. So how about we take California's gun laws and make them nation-wide?

Nobody in his right mind thinks that more restrictive gun laws would prevent every case of mass shooting. But if it prevented one a year, wouldn't it be worth it? Good, law-abiding, God fearing people like yourself would still be able to get your guns, but maybe one out of every 5 whack-job wouldn't. That's a step in the right direction in my opinion.

NigelUno wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Well the government has established what sort of plants and plant materials you may own, also... they've assumed control over a great many things individuals can do, own, etc. It's ironic considering we're supposed to be a nation founded on freedom and liberty.

I can't even paint my house without getting the color approved.

Is that a city ordinance? If so tell them to fuck off. If it is a HOA thing you're screwed since you signed that right away.

LooseGoose wrote:So this is now America, we get struck by terrorists and the 1st thing the left wants to talk about is disarming OUR citizens. Yep, makes all the sense in the world to me.

They were "our citizens," bruh.

Rocinante wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:So this is now America, we get struck by terrorists and the 1st thing the left wants to talk about is disarming OUR citizens. Yep, makes all the sense in the world to me.

They were "our citizens," bruh.

Thanks to Teddy Kennedy and 1965, yep.


jimgeraghty ‏@jimgeraghty 7m7 minutes ago
Really, some ISIS-minded bastard comes back from Saudi, kills Americans, and Hillary, Bernie and O'Malley blame America's gun owners.

Vaughn Sterling ‏@vplus 16m16 minutes ago
CNN BREAKING: Farook was in touch with more than one international terrorism subjects -@evanperez

Now Bob can carry on with blaming the NRA - facts be damned.

Only one solution.

Deport all US citizens who are Muslims

Rocinante wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Here's a serious question, yet I seriously expect no answers because empty rhetoric is so much easier. So far it's been determined that at least one of the weapons used was purchased legally in California a state with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. What additional "sensible" gun laws would you suggest beyond those in place in California?

I've copied most of a Reason magazine article enumerating those laws as a reference for you.

Okay, see? In the state with the most restrictive gun laws in the country, someone was still able to legally get an assault weapon. So how about we take California's gun laws and make them nation-wide?

Nobody in his right mind thinks that more restrictive gun laws would prevent every case of mass shooting. But if it prevented one a year, wouldn't it be worth it? Good, law-abiding, God fearing people like yourself would still be able to get your guns, but maybe one out of every 5 whack-job wouldn't. That's a step in the right direction in my opinion.

It wasn't an assault rifle. An assault rifle is fully automatic.

The San Bernardino shooters used two .223-caliber rifles and two semi-automatic pistols. I couldn't find what ammo they used but I'm going to assume that it was 9mm for the handguns and .223 for the rifles. Not exactly the stuff you'd want to try to take down a bear.