school shooting

[3rd]

https://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm


if you have the time this is a long read but all of this information used on this site is sited and all the sources are at the bottom

[ASU-FTW]

This thread is still going strong?

Failboat.

[ASUPATCH]

They just don't *want* their "freedoms" that they'll never actually use impinged.

You are exactly right. Because if we start giving away the ones that don't matter to certain people then it makes it much easier to have the important ones taken.

Our founding fathers had a very healthy distrust of government, and that was clearly written into the Constitution. Over the years, we have lost that distrust and replaced it with reliance and circumvented the Constitution to give powers to the government it was never intended to have. We will pay for that.

The founding fathers had a healthy distrust for good reason. They were escaping a monarchy. We have been running a pretty fair smooth democracy for 200+ years now. This is still the best country on earth as evidenced by people still trying to come here and very few leaving. They took assualt weapons away once and it wasnt the end of the world and it didn lead to us losing more freedoms. If anything we are gaining more freedoms. People in Colorado and Washing now can smoke pot and in some states gays can now marry freely. Gun arent going away ever in this country. But we do need to regulate who can purchase them and which weapons/mags we can purchase. When the founding fathers said a right to bear arms it was in reference to a single shot musket not 30 round assualt rifles. I seriously doubt they has the forsight to think of what technology would be and how dangerous it could be.

Signed,
ASUPATCH
A gun owner for intelligent gun control.

[Yosef]

...When the founding fathers said a right to bear arms it was in reference to a single shot musket not 30 round assualt rifles.

None of us know what it was in reference too - we weren't there. You could interpret it that way or you can interpret it that the founding fathers felt like the people have the right to defend themselves against enemies both foreign and domestic. If a domestic enemy (maybe the gov't?) has assault rifles, the founding fathers may have believed the citizens should be able to have assault rifles.

Just hate seeing you keep making assumptions on different things without fact buddy

[ASUPATCH]

...When the founding fathers said a right to bear arms it was in reference to a single shot musket not 30 round assualt rifles.

None of us know what it was in reference too - we weren't there. You could interpret it that way or you can interpret it that the founding fathers felt like the people have the right to defend themselves against enemies both foreign and domestic. If a domestic enemy (maybe the gov't?) has assault rifles, the founding fathers may have believed the citizens should be able to have assault rifles.

Just hate seeing you keep making assumptions on different things without fact buddy

With that thought process private citizen should have access to nuclear weapons. It was a different time in which the law was written. Women and minorities couldnt vote either. Again it was a different time. Things change and with it laws progress.

[ASUPATCH]

...When the founding fathers said a right to bear arms it was in reference to a single shot musket not 30 round assualt rifles.

None of us know what it was in reference too - we weren't there. You could interpret it that way or you can interpret it that the founding fathers felt like the people have the right to defend themselves against enemies both foreign and domestic. If a domestic enemy (maybe the gov't?) has assault rifles, the founding fathers may have believed the citizens should be able to have assault rifles.

Just hate seeing you keep making assumptions on different things without fact buddy

All we have to go on is fact. At the time bear arms meant a single shot musket as it was the only gun around. FACT .

[AppGrad1]

Banning ar's is nothing more than a political move to make Washington look like they are earning a paycheck.
mass shootings will continue and then the government will want to take away a few more rights. It's the game they play.
Imo, they should stop making vans too. They can be loaded down with bombs and parked close to targets and kill mega people. It's already been used. Not one single "group" asked Washington to stop producing vehicles that could transport mass bombs.
Problem is, people are crazy and gun control is political bs. Won't stop a thing. Again, political bs. POLITICAL BS.

[appst89]

They just don't *want* their "freedoms" that they'll never actually use impinged.

You are exactly right. Because if we start giving away the ones that don't matter to certain people then it makes it much easier to have the important ones taken.

Our founding fathers had a very healthy distrust of government, and that was clearly written into the Constitution. Over the years, we have lost that distrust and replaced it with reliance and circumvented the Constitution to give powers to the government it was never intended to have. We will pay for that.

The founding fathers had a healthy distrust for good reason. They were escaping a monarchy. We have been running a pretty fair smooth democracy for 200+ years now. This is still the best country on earth as evidenced by people still trying to come here and very few leaving. They took assualt weapons away once and it wasnt the end of the world and it didn lead to us losing more freedoms. If anything we are gaining more freedoms. People in Colorado and Washing now can smoke pot and in some states gays can now marry freely. Gun arent going away ever in this country. But we do need to regulate who can purchase them and which weapons/mags we can purchase. When the founding fathers said a right to bear arms it was in reference to a single shot musket not 30 round assualt rifles. I seriously doubt they has the forsight to think of what technology would be and how dangerous it could be.

Signed,
ASUPATCH
A gun owner for intelligent gun control.

I am not against the idea of intelligent gun control. The type of rifle used in that shooting probably is not needed by a private owner. The problem I have is with giving the government that power. I don't think the founding fathers envisioned multiple round magazines, but I do know they envisioned a time when the populace would have to overthrow an oppressive government just as they had done and they made sure the people had the blessing of the Constitution to be prepared for it.

[rbarthle17]

Things change and with it laws progress.

Sadly, a lot of people don't. This is proof of it.

[ASUPATCH]

Banning ar's is nothing more than a political move to make Washington look like they are earning a paycheck.
mass shootings will continue and then the government will want to take away a few more rights. It's the game they play.
Imo, they should stop making vans too. They can be loaded down with bombs and parked close to targets and kill mega people. It's already been used. Not one single "group" asked Washington to stop producing vehicles that could transport mass bombs.
Problem is, people are crazy and gun control is political bs. Won't stop a thing. Again, political bs. POLITICAL BS.

Difference being vans serve us a a method of mass transportation. Many churches and school and businesses and families need them for transportation purposes. While AR's with high cap mags serve no purpose but to kill people.

[ASUPATCH]

They just don't *want* their "freedoms" that they'll never actually use impinged.

You are exactly right. Because if we start giving away the ones that don't matter to certain people then it makes it much easier to have the important ones taken.

Our founding fathers had a very healthy distrust of government, and that was clearly written into the Constitution. Over the years, we have lost that distrust and replaced it with reliance and circumvented the Constitution to give powers to the government it was never intended to have. We will pay for that.

The founding fathers had a healthy distrust for good reason. They were escaping a monarchy. We have been running a pretty fair smooth democracy for 200+ years now. This is still the best country on earth as evidenced by people still trying to come here and very few leaving. They took assualt weapons away once and it wasnt the end of the world and it didn lead to us losing more freedoms. If anything we are gaining more freedoms. People in Colorado and Washing now can smoke pot and in some states gays can now marry freely. Gun arent going away ever in this country. But we do need to regulate who can purchase them and which weapons/mags we can purchase. When the founding fathers said a right to bear arms it was in reference to a single shot musket not 30 round assualt rifles. I seriously doubt they has the forsight to think of what technology would be and how dangerous it could be.

Signed,
ASUPATCH
A gun owner for intelligent gun control.

I am not against the idea of intelligent gun control. The type of rifle used in that shooting probably is not needed by a private owner. The problem I have is with giving the government that power. I don't think the founding fathers envisioned multiple round magazines, but I do know they envisioned a time when the populace would have to overthrow an oppressive government just as they had done and they made sure the people had the blessing of the Constitution to be prepared for it.

I agree with alot of what you say. Except for the overthrow of government. I dont care how many guns AR's or not we have, if the goverment wants us they have got us. We cant afford to fly F16's or drive tanks. So being able to fend off or overthrow the goverment is a moot point at this point. Right or wrong its the truth so why cling to an assualt rifle law based on false pretenses.

[rbarthle17]

I am not against the idea of intelligent gun control. The type of rifle used in that shooting probably is not needed by a private owner. The problem I have is with giving the government that power. I don't think the founding fathers envisioned multiple round magazines, but I do know they envisioned a time when the populace would have to overthrow an oppressive government just as they had done and they made sure the people had the blessing of the Constitution to be prepared for it.

The problem is people are showing they aren't capable of controlling guns on their own. And in this case the "few bad apples" are causing major tragedy. So yes, in this instance someone has to step in and force people to change. Probably lots of changes. Your "freedoms" and your right to become an anarchist (which is exactly what you are talking like here) is infinitely less important than the right for people to LIVE.

The simple fact that you can rationalize things the way you (and others) do is scary. Normally you and I see eye to eye on a lot of things. This one we are polar opposites.

[AppGrad1]

Banning ar's is nothing more than a political move to make Washington look like they are earning a paycheck.
mass shootings will continue and then the government will want to take away a few more rights. It's the game they play.
Imo, they should stop making vans too. They can be loaded down with bombs and parked close to targets and kill mega people. It's already been used. Not one single "group" asked Washington to stop producing vehicles that could transport mass bombs.
Problem is, people are crazy and gun control is political bs. Won't stop a thing. Again, political bs. POLITICAL BS.

Difference being vans serve us a a method of mass transportation. Many churches and school and businesses and families need them for transportation purposes. While AR's with high cap mags serve no purpose but to kill people.

That is your opinion that they serve no purpose.
To others it may be the enjoyment of shooting, others it might be to protect their home or business like in the LA riots.
Others love to hunt with them.
Saying they serve no purpose other than killing is a very narrow point of view.

[appst89]

I am not against the idea of intelligent gun control. The type of rifle used in that shooting probably is not needed by a private owner. The problem I have is with giving the government that power. I don't think the founding fathers envisioned multiple round magazines, but I do know they envisioned a time when the populace would have to overthrow an oppressive government just as they had done and they made sure the people had the blessing of the Constitution to be prepared for it.

The problem is people are showing they aren't capable of controlling guns on their own. And in this case the "few bad apples" are causing major tragedy. So yes, in this instance someone has to step in and force people to change. Probably lots of changes. Your "freedoms" and your right to become an anarchist (which is exactly what you are talking like here) is infinitely less important than the right for people to LIVE.

The simple fact that you can rationalize things the way you (and others) do is scary. Normally you and I see eye to eye on a lot of things. This one we are polar opposites.

And the way you (and others) can rationalize giving up rights is scary to me. So, yes, I think we will likely remain polar opposites on this one.

If wanting to preserve the Constitution makes me an anarchist then I guess I'm part of a new group.

[AppGrad1]

When's the last time a group of people stormed the presidents house blasting weapons that would require the security to use ar's?
I can't recall any but yet his house is guarded with these type weapons.
Things that make ya go hummmmmmm.
Give them bolt actions, then we can talk...

[rbarthle17]

If wanting to preserve the Constitution makes me an anarchist then I guess I'm part of a new group.

Fine, you should be able to have your single-shot musket available to you, per the Constitution. I can support that. If we're all about defending it, we should at least be accurate as to what is being defended.

While we're at it, should we go and repeal all the amendments? Because clearly the ability for your wife to vote is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they made this great nation. But at least she'd be considered a person, assuming she's white. Gotta fix that one too, if we're all about keeping this nation in line with what the Founding Fathers envisioned.

This is the point we're all trying to make. You want to protect the Constitution, a document that has been updated as time goes by and society changes on multiple occasions. Now is no different, other than you don't like the impact it would have. Not our problem.

[ASUPATCH]

Banning ar's is nothing more than a political move to make Washington look like they are earning a paycheck.
mass shootings will continue and then the government will want to take away a few more rights. It's the game they play.
Imo, they should stop making vans too. They can be loaded down with bombs and parked close to targets and kill mega people. It's already been used. Not one single "group" asked Washington to stop producing vehicles that could transport mass bombs.
Problem is, people are crazy and gun control is political bs. Won't stop a thing. Again, political bs. POLITICAL BS.

Difference being vans serve us a a method of mass transportation. Many churches and school and businesses and families need them for transportation purposes. While AR's with high cap mags serve no purpose but to kill people.

That is your opinion that they serve no purpose.
To others it may be the enjoyment of shooting, others it might be to protect their home or business like in the LA riots.
Others love to hunt with them.
Saying they serve no purpose other than killing is a very narrow point of view.

It is only for the enjoyment of shooting. I have shot an AR15 and it is very exhilarating. I am ok with giving up that enjoyment if it could possibly save lives. There is no need to hunt with an AR. And a handgun double tapped to the chest will protect from any single person you dont nedd 30 bullets for that. It serves no purpose a 9mm 40cal or shotgun doesnt already do for you. A car or pickup cant legally transport people the way a van or bus might. Hence it has a unique purpose.There is absuolutley no reason to have a gun show background check exemption either.

[Appsolutely]

I am not against the idea of intelligent gun control. The type of rifle used in that shooting probably is not needed by a private owner. The problem I have is with giving the government that power. I don't think the founding fathers envisioned multiple round magazines, but I do know they envisioned a time when the populace would have to overthrow an oppressive government just as they had done and they made sure the people had the blessing of the Constitution to be prepared for it.

The problem is people are showing they aren't capable of controlling guns on their own. And in this case the "few bad apples" are causing major tragedy. So yes, in this instance someone has to step in and force people to change. Probably lots of changes. Your "freedoms" and your right to become an anarchist (which is exactly what you are talking like here) is infinitely less important than the right for people to LIVE.

The simple fact that you can rationalize things the way you (and others) do is scary. Normally you and I see eye to eye on a lot of things. This one we are polar opposites.

And the way you (and others) can rationalize giving up rights is scary to me. So, yes, I think we will likely remain polar opposites on this one.

If wanting to preserve the Constitution makes me an anarchist then I guess I'm part of a new group.

What galls me is that I can't fire off an RPG every now and then. I would find that entertaining and enjoyable. Besides, if we can't fire off an RPG every now and then, what's next? A ban on AK-47s? I just don't get why the government has to intervene in our lives all the time. Just like these stupid DUI and speeding laws...people still drive drunk and kill people and they still speed and kill people, so what good are the laws? I just think if I want to get drunker than Cootie Brown's pappy, stick my head out of my sunroof at 90mph and fire off a couple RRGs, I ought to have the right to do it. Stupid government regulations are taking away my freedoms...I'm going to start an insurrection. Oh wait, I can't because they won't let me shoot a fricking RPG!!!

[ASUPATCH]

When's the last time a group of people stormed the presidents house blasting weapons that would require the security to use ar's?
I can't recall any but yet his house is guarded with these type weapons.
Things that make ya go hummmmmmm.
Give them bolt actions, then we can talk...

Research my friend research.
http://www.history.com/news/a-history-o ... se-attacks

Being in law enforcement I feel we should most certainly have more powerful guns as thos doing to harm. We are highly trained and go through full psych elavuation and are far more stable than society at large.

[appst89]

If wanting to preserve the Constitution makes me an anarchist then I guess I'm part of a new group.

Fine, you should be able to have your single-shot musket available to you, per the Constitution. I can support that. If we're all about defending it, we should at least be accurate as to what is being defended.

While we're at it, should we go and repeal all the amendments? Because clearly the ability for your wife to vote is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they made this great nation. But at least she'd be considered a person, assuming she's white. Gotta fix that one too, if we're all about keeping this nation in line with what the Founding Fathers envisioned.

This is the point we're all trying to make. You want to protect the Constitution, a document that has been updated as time goes by and society changes on multiple occasions. Now is no different, other than you don't like the impact it would have. Not our problem.

You're right. You've convinced me that we really don't need any of those pesky rights. They just get in the way of our safety and keep the government from protecting us from ourselves. How could I have been so silly? I am fully on your side now. Rights are not necessary and we don't need any of them.