Vegas shooting

[HawgGoneIt]

47 minutes ago, concha said:

I guess it makes you feel better to imagine I'm doing cartwheels.  I want you to be happy.

If you want to get into Federalist vs Anti-Federalist and all that, then fine.  At the end of the day,  the interpretation/meaning of my side of the aisle has prevailed going all the way back to the Founding.

As Maximus asked "Are you not entertained??!!"

I know that the argument has been compelling for years.

It's the same debate on what was meant by well regulated militia. I'd say from an originalist view point, without separating the phrase into two sections, the intent was a militia formed of regular folks that was run or trained well by some entity that isn't a regular folk.

Not a bunch of untrained yahoos running around with super firepower that is well oiled and cleaned. 

Just because a person knows how to shoot and keep a gun clean and in good condition does not make that person a part of a well regulated militia by any intent or purposes.

[concha]

10 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

I know that the argument has been compelling for years.

It's the same debate on what was meant by well regulated militia. I'd say from an originalist view point, without separating the phrase into two sections, the intent was a militia formed of regular folks that was run or trained well by some entity that isn't a regular folk.

Not a bunch of untrained yahoos running around with super firepower that is well oiled and cleaned. 

Just because a person knows how to shoot and keep a gun clean and in good condition does not make that person a part of a well regulated militia by any intent or purposes.

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html

[HawgGoneIt]

41 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

exactly...I was listening to Savage on the ride home from work and even he's had enough of this pro-gun NRA stance...he was saying every American should have a bazooka or flame thrower if they want...why stop at guns?...he knows how nuts the NRA gang is with their interpretation 2nd amendment....

 

Well this is true. It's an arms race mentality. As I said before it's the same mentality taken by countries in nuclear proliferation etc. 

If someone has a gun, of course we need one too, in order to protect ourselves from the first someone. If they get a bigger gun, we need one too,and etc. All the way to the point of multi-head nuclear missiles, and whatever is next beyond them. 

I don't see people losing their right to bear arms if there is stricter regulation imposed anymore than people see allowing airports to body scan you before boarding a plane as a loss of the protection of the rights to illegal search and seizure. 

People (congress and government) collectively decided that it wasn't illegal search and seizure to use machines to see under your clothing, so why is it that limiting the type and style of firearm is any different?

[HawgGoneIt]

1 minute ago, concha said:

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html

Pretty sure that mostly reaffirms what my point is.

James Madison said, "...The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws and ever for the support of the laws.

 

Sounds pretty much like someone in the government should be allowed to command and regulate them to me.

You can find these meanings all throughout the writings. 

Regulating the type of weapons is not equal to disarming or infringing the right to bear. That's silliness. 

[concha]

12 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Well this is true. It's an arms race mentality. As I said before it's the same mentality taken by countries in nuclear proliferation etc. 

If someone has a gun, of course we need one too, in order to protect ourselves from the first someone. If they get a bigger gun, we need one too,and etc. All the way to the point of multi-head nuclear missiles, and whatever is next beyond them. 

I don't see people losing their right to bear arms if there is stricter regulation imposed anymore than people see allowing airports to body scan you before boarding a plane as a loss of the protection of the rights to illegal search and seizure. 

People (congress and government) collectively decided that it wasn't illegal search and seizure to use machines to see under your clothing, so why is it that limiting the type and style of firearm is any different?

I was unaware that the NRA is pushing for folks to have bazookas and MIRVs.

.

[concha]

4 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Pretty sure that mostly reaffirms what my point is.

James Madison said, "...The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws and ever for the support of the laws.

 

Sounds pretty much like someone in the government should be allowed to command and regulate them to me.

You can find these meanings all throughout the writings. 

Regulating the type of weapons is not equal to disarming or infringing the right to bear. That's silliness. 

Neither I (nor the NRA) call for folks to have any weapon they choose.

That said, the whole idea behind the 2nd amendment is to have the people in the position to be able to resist a tyrannical government if necessary.

[thc6795]

4 minutes ago, concha said:

Neither I (nor the NRA) call for folks to have any weapon they choose.

That said, the whole idea behind the 2nd amendment is to have the people in the position to be able to resist a tyrannical government if necessary.

Hell why stop at the 2nd amendment lets change them all. Freedom of speech Im sure they were not thinking of the web, facebook, instagram, twitter.  Or freedom to protest and assemble. Im sure they were not thinking that you could fly from Washington, DC to CA in a couple of hours. Hell burn it all and start over.

Most of you dumb fucks don't know what a silencer does and now your gun experts demanding who has the right to own one. Fuck you.

[HawgGoneIt]

18 minutes ago, thc6795 said:

Hell why stop at the 2nd amendment lets change them all. Freedom of speech Im sure they were not thinking of the web, facebook, instagram, twitter.  Or freedom to protest and assemble. Im sure they were not thinking that you could fly from Washington, DC to CA in a couple of hours. Hell burn it all and start over.

Most of you dumb fucks don't know what a silencer does and now your gun experts demanding who has the right to own one. Fuck you.

Who on here said change the second amendment man? Which "dumb fuck" did that? 

I posted a video showing the difference a silencer makes on an AR15 with a gatlin gun trigger device that showed the auto timer couldn't even pick up the sound and the man not needing hearing protection at all. Guess that makes me a "dumb fuck" that doesn't know what a silencer does.

Why stop there bro. Go all the way off the edge. You stay pretty close as it is. 

[HawgGoneIt]

33 minutes ago, concha said:

Neither I (nor the NRA) call for folks to have any weapon they choose.

That said, the whole idea behind the 2nd amendment is to have the people in the position to be able to resist a tyrannical government if necessary.

So why the huge debate then? 

Not one person has called for your guns to be taken. They've simply called for common sense regulation and you guys went off the deep end that folks are calling for you to lose the right to bear.

This dumbness happens every time some idiot shoots up a lot of people.

 

 

[concha]

2 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

So why the huge debate then? 

Not one person has called for your guns to be taken. They've simply called for common sense regulation and you guys went off the deep end that folks are calling for you to lose the right to bear.

This dumbness happens every time some idiot shoots up a lot of people.

 

 

Watch the Ben Shapiro video.

It would help if people in support of gun control had a fucking clue.

[World Citizen]

24 minutes ago, thc6795 said:

Hell why stop at the 2nd amendment lets change them all. Freedom of speech Im sure they were not thinking of the web, facebook, instagram, twitter.  Or freedom to protest and assemble. Im sure they were not thinking that you could fly from Washington, DC to CA in a couple of hours. Hell burn it all and start over.

Most of you dumb fucks don't know what a silencer does and now your gun experts demanding who has the right to own one. Fuck you.

?????

I have not heard anybody say anything like that.  I think all of us don't want anybody to get killed while at a concert.  Lets all start from that perspective and try not to lose sight of that.  I want you to live a happy long life.  Same for everybody on this planet.  That's what we all should want.  

[thc6795]

2 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Who on here said change the second amendment man? Which "dumb fuck" did that? 

I posted a video showing the difference a silencer makes on an AR15 with a gatlin gun trigger device that showed the auto timer couldn't even pick up the sound and the man not needing hearing protection at all. Guess that makes me a "dumb fuck" that doesn't know what a silencer does.

Why stop there bro. Go all the way off the edge. You stay pretty close as it is. 

If the shoe fits if it doesn't fine. You seem to understand that a silencer would not have caused any more damage. The dumb fucks are Caj and douchebagpussy66. They have no idea what the fuck they are talking about. They hear killiar make a dumbass out of herself and jump on board. The 2nd amendment is clear. The right to bear arms was not made so you could go deer hunting. They new exactly how far we had already advanced in making weapons. Hell a long rifle was state of the art back then until the following yr.

There are laws in place, Yes we need to do better, however there is not one law being reviewed currently or in place that would have prevented any mass shooting.

[HawgGoneIt]

Just now, World Citizen said:

?????

I have not heard anybody say anything like that.  I think all of us don't want anybody to get killed while at a concert.  Lets all start from that perspective and try not to lose sight of that.  I want you to live a happy long life.  Same for everybody on this planet.  That's what we all should want.  

You must be one of them "dumb fucks" to man. Be careful or you could get a resounding "fuck you." 

[thc6795]

2 minutes ago, World Citizen said:

?????

I have not heard anybody say anything like that.  I think all of us don't want anybody to get killed while at a concert.  Lets all start from that perspective and try not to lose sight of that.  I want you to live a happy long life.  Same for everybody on this planet.  That's what we all should want.  

Go back and read douchebag66 and Cajun. There were others. Currently what law have the democrats offered up that would have prevented one mass shooting?

[World Citizen]

Just now, HawgGoneIt said:

You must be one of them "dumb fucks" to man. Be careful or you could get a resounding "fuck you." 

Lol. Wouldn't be the first time.  Some times it was deserved too but this wouldn't be one of them.  

😏

[World Citizen]

2 minutes ago, thc6795 said:

Go back and read douchebag66 and Cajun. There were others. Currently what law have the democrats offered up that would have prevented one mass shooting?

Any hope of common sense measures have been shutdown before they could be debated in the floor.  As a country, we can't get remotely close to passing any law that would make a difference.  If we can save 1 life by passing something, it will be worth it.  We don't have to save everybody or stop every shooting but to not try is a bad thing imo.  Should be unacceptable to all of us immediately.  But people are more concerned about their right to bear arms than they are about saving 1life.  

Question.  If you were given the choice of giving up your guns and saving a life, would you?  

[HawgGoneIt]

All I know is that in general, laws are made to protect us from our own selves. There are laws about the general public owning fully auto weapons, but not against owning weapons that were designed with skirting these rules in mind via easy modifications. 

These high caliber rifles with tube stocks designed to fit mods like the slide stock, and shotguns designed similarly with drum magazines etc. are a definite problem and were specifically designed to be easily modified in numerous ways.  A good hard look needs to be taken at these weapons and allowing just any person to obtain them.

The same goes for the gatlin gun trigger mechanism. 

Zulu brought up that someone with a regular bump stock can do the same thing with a semi auto with enough practice and skills. This is true, but it doesn't change the fact that that any person can easily convert a bushmaster into basically fully auto with zero training, skills or practice legally. 

Of course people will always still convert weapons illegally, but making it easier for them to do so shouldn't be a part of the plan imo.

[thc6795]

3 minutes ago, World Citizen said:

Any hope of common sense measures have been shutdown before they could be debated in the floor.  As a country, we can't get remotely close to passing any law that would make a difference.  If we can save 1 life by passing something, it will be worth it.  We don't have to save everybody or stop every shooting but to not try is a bad thing imo.  Should be unacceptable to all of us immediately.  But people are more concerned about their right to bear arms than they are about saving 1life.  

Question.  If you were given the choice of giving up your guns and saving a life, would you?  

I don't own guns. If I did it would one depend on who's life and then how many could be saved by losing one.

Question for you. The person who has just given me this ultimatum is he holding a weapon on me forcing me to choose?

[thc6795]

6 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

All I know is that in general, laws are made to protect us from our own selves. There are laws about the general public owning fully auto weapons, but not against owning weapons that were designed with skirting these rules in mind via easy modifications. 

These high caliber rifles with tube stocks designed to fit mods like the slide stock, and shotguns designed similarly with drum magazines etc. are a definite problem and were specifically designed to be easily modified in numerous ways.  A good hard look needs to be taken at these weapons and allowing just any person to obtain them.

The same goes for the gatlin gun trigger mechanism. 

Zulu brought up that someone with a regular bump stock can do the same thing with a semi auto with enough practice and skills. This is true, but it doesn't change the fact that that any person can easily convert a bushmaster into basically fully auto with zero training, skills or practice legally. 

Of course people will always still convert weapons illegally, but making it easier for them to do so shouldn't be a part of the plan imo.

I think this is something that most could stand behind. The problem is this isn't what Chuck, Nancy and Killiar are suggesting. They are trying to pass blanket laws and once again trying to claim everyone who owns or supports the right to own a gun as being the devil.  As far as dems are concerned Republicans are nothing but racists and arm bearing devils.

[World Citizen]

2 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

All I know is that in general, laws are made to protect us from our own selves. There are laws about the general public owning fully auto weapons, but not against owning weapons that were designed with skirting these rules in mind via easy modifications. 

These high caliber rifles with tube stocks designed to fit mods like the slide stock, and shotguns designed similarly with drum magazines etc. are a definite problem and were specifically designed to be easily modified in numerous ways.  A good hard look needs to be taken at these weapons and allowing just any person to obtain them.

The same goes for the gatlin gun trigger mechanism. 

Zulu brought up that someone with a regular bump stock can do the same thing with a semi auto with enough practice and skills. This is true, but it doesn't change the fact that that any person can easily convert a bushmaster into basically fully auto with zero training, skills or practice legally. 

Of course people will always still convert weapons illegally, but making it easier for them to do so shouldn't be a part of the plan imo.

Guns do not add to making us better people or a better society imo.  Just because it is a right doesn't make it 'right'.  To each his own I guess even if it's not my own and I lose my life.  Gun rights trump others right to live.  

[TheRealCAJ]

"common sense" or watch concha videos and debate worthless concha links till your 108?

Only in America people.

Meanwhile: gear up if you attend a concert, church or want to hit a nightclub. Keep calm and return fire!!!

 

 

 

 

[World Citizen]

6 minutes ago, thc6795 said:

I don't own guns. If I did it would one depend on who's life and then how many could be saved by losing one.

Question for you. The person who has just given me this ultimatum is he holding a weapon on me forcing me to choose?

No brother

  No gun on you. Kind of like a genie in a bottle situation where you are given a choice.  You don't get to choose who gets killed, that is random.  Could be a loved one or someone whom you might deem not worth saving (hint-everyone is worth saving btw).  

[thc6795]

Just now, World Citizen said:

No brother

  No gun on you. Kind of like a genie in a bottle situation where you are given a choice.  You don't get to choose who gets killed, that is random.  Could be a loved one or someone whom you might deem not worth saving (hint-everyone is worth saving btw).  

It is a good question I guess in the end I would choose not to leave my family and myself unprotected. I give up my gun today to save one, then 2maro my entire family is massacred because I couldn't protect them.

[HawgGoneIt]

8 minutes ago, thc6795 said:

I think this is something that most could stand behind. The problem is this isn't what Chuck, Nancy and Killiar are suggesting. They are trying to pass blanket laws and once again trying to claim everyone who owns or supports the right to own a gun as being the devil.  As far as dems are concerned Republicans are nothing but racists and arm bearing devils.

I think that pretty much anyone that suggests any adjustments to gun laws at all immediately get demonized as anti 2nd amendment and this is the perception with congress and senators that attempt to introduce these discussions. 

Those folks in the senate probably see it similarly as myself, but just as happened in this thread everyone tends to get lumped together as anti 2nd rather than just anti bushmaster, or anti-mod etc.

[thc6795]

17 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

I think that pretty much anyone that suggests any adjustments to gun laws at all immediately get demonized as anti 2nd amendment and this is the perception with congress and senators that attempt to introduce these discussions. 

Those folks in the senate probably see it similarly as myself, but just as happened in this thread everyone tends to get lumped together as anti 2nd rather than just anti bushmaster, or anti-mod etc.

It is not really hard trying to figure out what Chuck, Nancy, Killiar and the wannebe redskin get up and shout that all automatic/semi-automatic weapons be confiscated, and stop being produced. How about we try and fix the person and not blame the guns. Do we blame coke for an addicts condition?