Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Robbob

The biggest problem is that it is written into the constitution as a right not a privilege.

So is life, but we take that away in certain instances.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

You can talk about repealing the 2nd amendment all you want. It is never going to happen. That movement will never have the level of support necessary to repeal an amendment.

That's why I feel it is necessary to start with realistic measures.

All you need to do is pass a law requiring every gun owner to be in a state militia, and make it neccersary to attend said militia, two three nights a week, plenty of drill, marching, screaming RSM's.
That will get rid of 90 percent of gun owners.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

So is life, but we take that away in certain instances.

So true, isn't it? It's funny how many of today's laws contradict the constitution left, right and center and no one really bats an eye figuratively speaking.

If someone wants to make new laws that regulate guns with the end goal of protecting the general population, people throw their arms up in the air and 'plead the 2nd'. It's farcical. The NRA today isn't even what it was designed to be. In fact, the NRA was supposed to be an organization that favored gun regulation.

It's a major problem in America - if not the biggest problem. But I really truly believe it will never change. People would rather watch thousands die each year by firearms than have a law that makes it slightly more inconvenient to be a gun owner, or that prohibits guns that are specifically designed to kill multiple humans quickly.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

We should do the same with drugs.

When you can grow an AR 15 in your basement with a couple of halogen lights, or cook up a glock from parts found in your local pharmacy, then your arguement would have validity.

guns come from relatively easily controlled points of origin, they are also difficult to conceal, say by shoving them up your arse, and smuggle, unlike drugs.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

All you need to do is pass a law requiring every gun owner to be in a state militia, and make it neccersary to attend said militia, two three nights a week, plenty of drill, marching, screaming RSM's.
That will get rid of 90 percent of gun owners.

This "law" A) would never happen (reality vs fantasy) and B) wpuld just make the 90 some odd percentage of law abidding gun owners criminals. The public will not "surreneder" the guns. And with some 300 million in America, no union would support a door to door confiscation of firearms for variouls safety reasons.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

All you need to do is pass a law requiring every gun owner to be in a state militia, and make it neccersary to attend said militia, two three nights a week, plenty of drill, marching, screaming RSM's.
That will get rid of 90 percent of gun owners.

LOL. 90% might be a bit low!

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

This "law" A) would never happen (reality vs fantasy) and B) wpuld just make the 90 some odd percentage of law abidding gun owners criminals. The public will not "surreneder" the guns. And with some 300 million in America, no union would support a door to door confiscation of firearms for variouls safety reasons.

Well perhaps that is a small price to pay to save thousands of lives. Do you have a better idea how to save those lives?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

When you can grow an AR 15 in your basement with a couple of halogen lights, or cook up a glock from parts found in your local pharmacy, then your arguement would have validity.

guns come from relatively easily controlled points of origin, they are also difficult to conceal, say by shoving them up your arse, and smuggle, unlike drugs.

There are already millions of illegally obtained in the US and Canada. Millions. And you'd like to just ask people to turn them in, then get the unarmed cops to go find the rest?

Also, it's way easier to smuggle guns because in most cases the gun powder smell becomes undetectable after a year. You can't "shove them up your arse" but why would you?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The mantra of the gun nuts is always any price is worth paying to protect the U.S.'s freedom from a tyrannical government...

What's especially dumb is that standing up to a tyrannical government means combat with U.S. military personnel. Who:

A) Are quite a popular, even revered segment of the population among those most in favour of owning guns, and

B) Would easily clean up an armed mob if it came to combat.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Robbob

The biggest problem is that it is written into the constitution as a right not a privilege.

The fourteenth amendment also says a woman has a right to a legal and safe abortion if she determines she wants to end a pregnancy, but states have been finding ways to make that extremely difficult if not impossible.

[110%]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

When you can grow an AR 15 in your basement with a couple of halogen lights, or cook up a glock from parts found in your local pharmacy, then your arguement would have validity.

guns come from relatively easily controlled points of origin, they are also difficult to conceal, say by shoving them up your arse, and smuggle, unlike drugs.

People can essentially print a functioning gun (including the AR 15) on a 3D printer that will fire a round. It will soon be far easier to print off a gun than grow drugs. Some people developing this technology are also big time open source proponents, meaning they want everyone to be able to (or at least have access to the schematics) to print off a gun. This technology is real.

Here's a a kind of bad video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DconsfGsXyA

[jeffman]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

What's especially dumb is that standing up to a tyrannical government means combat with U.S. military personnel. Who:

A) Are quite a popular, even revered segment of the population among those most in favour of owning guns, and

B) Would easily clean up an armed mob if it came to combat.

I think the assumption is that they would be fighting legions of incompetent foreign blue helmets

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

All you need to do is pass a law requiring every gun owner to be in a state militia, and make it neccersary to attend said militia, two three nights a week, plenty of drill, marching, screaming RSM's.
That will get rid of 90 percent of gun owners.

That is probably the only strategy that I have heard with a chance of making a difference. I have often wondered why the "...as part of a well regulated militia" just gets overlooked.

[puffnstuff]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The issue is that people lump semi-automatic sporting rifles into the same bucket as "assault weapons" based on cosmetic aspects that have nothing to do with the function of the firearm.

What 'sport' requires semi automatic fire? Is it a 'gee itd be nice if I didnt have to cycle the bolt manually to shoot at that target again' or is there an actual sport that requires the kind of fire rate a semi automatic can only provide?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

What 'sport' requires semi automatic fire? Is it a 'gee itd be nice if I didnt have to cycle the bolt manually to shoot at that target again' or is there an actual sport that requires the kind of fire rate a semi automatic can only provide?

Human hunting. It's the number one sport in America, and the problem is those damn humans scatter as soon as you shoot one, so the weapons need to evolve.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

What 'sport' requires semi automatic fire? Is it a 'gee itd be nice if I didnt have to cycle the bolt manually to shoot at that target again' or is there an actual sport that requires the kind of fire rate a semi automatic can only provide?

The fun kind. You know, just shooting up stuff. I don't doubt that it's a blast emptying a clip at a range - that's part of what you're up against

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by edslunch

The fun kind. You know, just shooting up stuff. I don't doubt that it's a blast emptying a clip at a range - that's part of what you're up against

It's true...and its this unabashed selfishness which pisses me off the most. 'My right to have technology to use for fun is worth the carnage'

Seriously f'ed up

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by edslunch

The fun kind. You know, just shooting up stuff. I don't doubt that it's a blast emptying a clip at a range - that's part of what you're up against

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

It's true...and its this unabashed selfishness which pisses me off the most. 'My right to have technology to use for fun is worth the carnage'

Seriously f'ed up

It is true there is nothin like putting rounds down range. The feel of a .50 cal thump in your hand is boner inducing, and snap shooting in jungle lanes is awesome.

That and the food is what I really miss about the army.

[puffnstuff]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

It is true there is nothin like putting rounds down range. The feel of a .50 cal thump in your hand is boner inducing, and snap shooting in jungle lanes is awesome.

That and the food is what I really miss about the army.

Well maybe just take a viagra instead

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

Well maybe just take a viagra instead

Nah it ain't the same, and if you haven't done it, it is hard to understand.

Note that nowhere have I states that civilians should have the right to do this.