Connecticut School shooting!

[spidey07]

For a novice, even getting two chest shots on a person at 10 yards is not easy with a subcompact/snub-nose. Add in low-light (most defense situations occur at night), adrenaline, etc. There's a reason veteran shooters shy away from those types of guns for concealed carry.

Either way, it is absurd to limit all civilians to puff guns because some people hold delusions about their godly shooting abilities.

And that's the reason why magazine capacity bans only hurt legitimate uses. When and IF you have to use a gun in self defense, you want as many bullets as possible because most of them are going to miss your target no matter how good you are.

 

[dmens]

I am betting most people are not "concealed carrying" AR-15 eithers.

Never said they did. However various states already have limits on magazine capacity, and the 1994 federal ban also limited handguns to 10 rounds. Basically that reduced the already limited effectiveness of handguns for civilians.

Also I was originally replying to a poster who said he has no interest in AR's simply because... well, I don't know why. I was merely arguing that handguns are last-ditch weapons.

 

[Darwin333]

What is up with the Media lately? They have blatantly ignored the victims in this tragedy; The gun owners.

If you are serious, for the good of all of our gun rights, I would ask you to please shut up. Thanks in advance.

 

[spidey07]

Never said they did. However various states already have bans on magazine capacity, and the 1994 federal ban also limited handguns to 10 rounds. Basically that reduced the already limited effectiveness of handguns for civilians.

Also I was originally replying to a poster who said he has no interest in AR's simply because... well, I don't know why. I was merely arguing that handguns are last-ditch weapons.

To be fair, the handgun is so you can get to your rifle.

Or if rifle is primary, then you're right...the handgun is the last ditch, last effort weapon.

 

[Darwin333]

If by punishing you mean making it so you don't have access to certain things in an effort to keep more kids from being killed, yup I support that.

I think losing the right to own an assault weapon for example is acceptable if it saves one kid from losing their right to breath.

How many of our rights would you be willing to give up for 100 kids? 1000? What about 10,000, would you be willing to scrap the entire Bill of Rights for those 10,000 kids?

 

[TallBill]

How many of our rights would you be willing to give up for 100 kids? 1000? What about 10,000, would you be willing to scrap the entire Bill of Rights for those 10,000 kids?

I'd start looking at moving to Canada if there was an offer on the table consisting of "We get a new Bill of Rights or 10,000 people die".

 

[waggy]

How many of our rights would you be willing to give up for 100 kids? 1000? What about 10,000, would you be willing to scrap the entire Bill of Rights for those 10,000 kids?

before of after all the deaths that were done to get us those rights?

 

[lotus503]

How many of our rights would you be willing to give up for 100 kids? 1000? What about 10,000, would you be willing to scrap the entire Bill of Rights for those 10,000 kids?

No idea, I haven't been presented with anything requiring that examination.


I think it's hyperbole. You have the right to bear arms, what those are is open to be interpretation. You can't have a tank, drone, biological or nuclear weapons.

So obviously you already have restrictions to your right to bear arms.

If further restrictions is the alternative to nothing at all I support that.

 

[Farmer]

No idea, I haven't been presented with anything requiring that examination.


I think it's hyperbole. You have the right to bear arms, what those are is open to be interpretation. You can't have a tank, drone, biological or nuclear weapons.

So obviously you already have restrictions to your right to bear arms.

If further restrictions is the alternative to nothing at all I support that.

I think that's another thing to discuss:

You can't expect that an average citizen will be able to responsibly use a tank, attack helicopter, or laser guided bomb. Hence it would be incredibly irresponsible for citizens to have be allowed free access to those weapons. Access would have to come after a great deal of training.

The question is, can you expect the average citizen to responsibly keep and use a firearm? I would say yes. Some would say no.

 

[dmens]

I think it's hyperbole. You have the right to bear arms, what those are is open to be interpretation. You can't have a tank, drone, biological or nuclear weapons.

Civilians can absolutely "have" those things, but the government in their infinite wisdom decided they ought to be the only ones who should have them, so if they will imprison or murder anyone who tries to acquire them.

But hey, let's not examine at the government track record with those particular weapons, because the government is your friend. Those people incinerated at Waco deserved to have tanks ram their building and gas them with CS. The thousands drone-murdered by Bushbama's direct order also deserved it, no doubt.

 

[spidey07]

before of after all the deaths that were done to get us those rights?

Excellent. Except quick correction. "protect these natural rights of man"

 

[spidey07]

No idea, I haven't been presented with anything requiring that examination.


I think it's hyperbole. You have the right to bear arms, what those are is open to be interpretation. You can't have a tank, drone, biological or nuclear weapons.

So obviously you already have restrictions to your right to bear arms.

If further restrictions is the alternative to nothing at all I support that.

Oh I absolutely can have all of those. One could build or manufacture them.

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't know what kind of laws would have averted this crime, unless it's banning all guns, and being able to actually do it effectively.

On the mental health front, all certain people knew was that the kid was odd and socially awkward. The descriptions sound a lot like Asperger's to me. But people with Asperger's are not typically violent.

Another complicating factor is that the mother was probably imbalanced. She's been described as a "doomsday preparer" by people who knew her. I have this image of her as a hermit in that house with her son, supported by large alimony checks from her rich ex-husband, stock-piling guns and doing who knows what. All this with a disturbed child. Anyway, it's not like the mother could have done something about it with better access to mental health because she was probably a nut herself who also needed to see a shrink.

 

[lotus503]

Civilians can absolutely "have" those things, but the government in their infinite wisdom decided they ought to be the only ones who should have them, so if they will imprison or murder anyone who tries to acquire them.

But hey, let's not examine at the government track record with those particular weapons, because the government is your friend. Those people incinerated at Waco deserved to have tanks ram their building and gas them with CS. The thousands drone-murdered by Bushbama's direct order also deserved it, no doubt.

I'm ok with the fact you are not allowed to have tanks, nukes, etc.

Whether or not the government should engage in what it engages in is a separate conversation.

What is relevant is there are restrictions to you right to bear arms. And if the only way to prevent this type of gun violence is to further restrict them, I support that.

But rather than try to come up with practical solutions the gun culture would rather just chalk it up to acceptable by-product of 2nd amendment freedom.

 

[nehalem256]

I don't know what kind of laws would have averted this crime, unless it's banning all guns, and being able to actually do it effectively.

On the mental health front, all certain people knew was that the kid was odd and socially awkward. The descriptions sound a lot like Asperger's to me. But people with Asperger's are not typically violent.

Another complicating factor is that the mother was probably imbalanced. She's been described as a "doomsday preparer" by people who knew her. I have this image of her as a hermit in that house with her son, supported by large alimony checks from her rich ex-husband, stock-piling guns and doing who knows what. All this with a disturbed child. Anyway, it's not like the mother could have done something about it with better access to mental health because she was probably a nut herself who also needed to see a shrink.

Sounds like an argument against letting crazy people have children.

When do you think you will see liberals advocating for mental health screenings before we let people be parents?

 

[woolfe9999]

Sounds like an argument against letting crazy people have children.

When do you think you will see liberals advocating for mental health screenings before we let people be parents?

Who is to say that there were any signs of mental health issues on the mother's part before she had this child? Mental illness can manifest at any time in a person's life.

My hunch is that rich hubby left in 2009 because the wife was getting nutty. But she probably wasn't nutty when they got married.

 

[dmens]

I'm ok with the fact you are not allowed to have tanks, nukes, etc.

The goal of 2A is the guarantee the means to resist the state. If tanks and nukes are necessary to do that, so be it. I fail to see why your acquiescence to the government jackboot means dissidents should be disarmed and curb-stomped in the same fashion.

Whether or not the government should engage in what it engages in is a separate conversation.

No, it is totally related. 2A is the ultimate method to tell the government to fuck off. Your stance is to take that away. Why, because voting in asshole A and douchebag B has been so effective for the last century?

What is relevant is there are restrictions to you right to bear arms. And if the only way to prevent this type of gun violence is to further restrict them, I support that.

But rather than try to come up with practical solutions the gun culture would rather just chalk it up to acceptable by-product of 2nd amendment freedom.

You assume those restrictions to be legitimate because you accept the legitimacy of the Total State and you are fine with the the imprisonment and murder of dissidents who dare to acquire the means to resist. I happen to disagree. That's all there is to it.

If you really want to prevent gun massacres committed by civilians, you can read all the posts in this very thread about the sorry state of mental healthcare in the US, as well as the clear complicity of the sensationalist media. Gun control won't change anything; it is nothing but a euphemism for people control.

 

[lotus503]

The goal of 2A is the guarantee the means to resist the state. If tanks and nukes are necessary to do that, so be it. I fail to see why your acquiescence to the government jackboot means dissidents should be disarmed and curb-stomped in the same fashion.



No, it is totally related. 2A is the ultimate method to tell the government to fuck off. Your stance is to take that away. Why, because voting in asshole A and douchebag B has been so effective for the last century?



You assume those restrictions to be legitimate because you accept the legitimacy of the Total State and you are fine with the the imprisonment and murder of dissidents who dare to acquire the means to resist. I happen to disagree. That's all there is to it.

If you really want to prevent gun massacres committed by civilians, you can read all the posts in this very thread about the sorry state of mental healthcare in the US, as well as the clear complicity of the sensationalist media. Gun control won't change anything; it is nothing but a euphemism for people control.

You haven't had the means to resist the state in a 100 years. So far so good, no nukes for you, no tanks, no bio weapons etc. it's been decided and you can't resist the state only wrap yourself in metal security blankets that do nothing to resist the state.

 

[dmens]

You haven't had the means to resist the state in a 100 years. So far so good, no nukes for you, no tanks, no bio weapons etc. it's been decided and you can't resist the state only wrap yourself in metal security blankets that do nothing to resist the state.

That's odd, people have resisted against the regime in the past 100 years, with guns and other means, both at home and abroad. Despite what the government has decided, as you put it.

Also implying their decision to outlaw resistance is legitimate in any way whatsoever. I'd like to hear your rationale.

 

[Farmer]

You haven't had the means to resist the state in a 100 years. So far so good, no nukes for you, no tanks, no bio weapons etc. it's been decided and you can't resist the state only wrap yourself in metal security blankets that do nothing to resist the state.

People not fortunate enough to live in the United States have resisted the state with little more than their bare hands. Maybe you've seen this picture?

I have a few others if you want to see them.

 

[nehalem256]

Who is to say that there were any signs of mental health issues on the mother's part before she had this child? Mental illness can manifest at any time in a person's life.

My hunch is that rich hubby left in 2009 because the wife was getting nutty. But she probably wasn't nutty when they got married.

And what a great idea to leave their social awkward with child with his nutty mom.

 

[lotus503]

That's odd, people have resisted against the regime in the past 100 years, with guns and other means, both at home and abroad. Despite what the government has decided, as you put it.

Also implying their decision to outlaw resistance is legitimate in any way whatsoever. I'd like to hear your rationale.

My rationale is society is better off with citizens being restricted in the types of weapons they can own. The world is a better place because you cannot have weapons of mass destruction, tanks and armed drones.

Governmental failings aside I'm glad the guy next door doesn't have access to those weapons.

 

[lotus503]

People not fortunate enough to live in the United States have resisted the state with little more than their bare hands. Maybe you've seen this picture?

I have a few others if you want to see them.

Yup one lone guy standing in the way of tanks, no gun, no tank of his own, pretty effective too.

So your very restricted right to bear arms does nothing to resist the state that a lone guy with some conviction can't do.

Thanks for proving my point, that the 2nd amendment as a means to resist the government is ridiculous outside of metal security blanket.

 

[dmens]

My rationale is society is better off with citizens being restricted in the types of weapons they can own. The world is a better place because you cannot have weapons of mass destruction, tanks and armed drones.

Governmental failings aside I'm glad the guy next door doesn't have access to those weapons.

I can just replace the WMD's, tanks and drones with rifles and handguns and your post would be the exact same, given your posts in this thread.

So essentially your rationale as to why people just bow down to the state is because "society" is better off that way? I'd ask if you realize how sick that sounds, but I doubt you know.

 

[dmens]

Yup one lone guy standing in the way of tanks, no gun, no tank of his own, pretty effective too.

So your very restricted right to bear arms does nothing to resist the state that a lone guy with some conviction can't do.

Thanks for proving my point, that the 2nd amendment as a means to resist the government is ridiculous outside of metal security blanket.

Yeah, 2A never did any good at all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

Yup one lone guy standing in the way of tanks, no gun, no tank of his own, pretty effective too.

So your very restricted right to bear arms does nothing to resist the state that a lone guy with some conviction can't do.

Because symbols mean nothing. Of course that is in a country where the supremacy of the state is literally the law, without exception, so the fact that one man in China can do such a thing means the people here ought to be able to do a little more. Well, not you of course.