WTAF???

[Davis Sharp]

Last I checked conservatives are the minority in Congress.
Right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting.

I'm not referring to the current Congress. The legislation I mentioned was passed years ago.

 

[Old as Dust]

Whereas in this case an 18 years old just days after his birthday was able to but not just one but two AR15 type assault rifles and hundreds of rounds of ammunition LEGALLY in Texas.

The kid had no drivers license. Didn't even know how to drive. Had never been trained in the use of firearms and yet he was able to buy these guns and commit mass murder.

I'm not even gonna ask what's wrong with this picture. We ALL know damn well what's wrong with it and that it need to come to an end.

The news forgot to report other facts, you say he did not know how to drive, but drove himself in a F250 pickup truck to the area of the School. Where did the Truck come from?

The reason I will always support the ownership of a AR-15 is indeed the Second Amendment, for the purpose of why it is in the Constitution, so that we in the USA can protect the US Consitution and all our freedoms from a Government that wants to Abandon the rights and freedoms we enjoy and replace those freedoms with mandates and dictating.

They made a movie about a Country that the Government decided to take the right to bear arms from it's citizens...I am sure the name of that movie was Schindler's List. It was a true story.

 

[Davis Sharp]

Poland took away the right to bear arms from it's citizens?

 

[syco]

The news forgot to report other facts, you say he did not know how to drive, but drove himself in a F250 pickup truck to the area of the School. Where did the Truck come from?

The reason I will always support the ownership of a AR-15 is indeed the Second Amendment, for the purpose of why it is in the Constitution, so that we in the USA can protect the US Consitution and all our freedoms from a Government that wants to Abandon the rights and freedoms we enjoy and replace those freedoms with mandates and dictating.

They made a movie about a Country that the Government decided to take the right to bear arms from it's citizens...I am sure the name of that movie was Schindler's List. It was a true story.

This why America is circling the toilet bowl .

 

[Old as Dust]

Yup and as far as the military goes they are well aware there is only a very slight difference between them and the military version and this opinion came from a Colonel in the US Army.

He even made the point that while a military version has the option of selecting auto fire of multiple rounds it's not frequently used in combat because the weapon is far more accurate when fired by a single round.

Debating terminology is a waste of time and any laws that may be written can certainly describe and AR15 in such as way as to make their ownership illegal. It's been done before and it can be done again.

The very fact that the M-16 is indeed a weapon used by the Military is due to it's firing rate. Accuracy is also a factor, but not as much in a combat setting where a lot of firepower from an automatic weapon is vital.

Sadly I would not agree with someone giving an opinion claiming to be a Colonel in the US Army. Given the factors that recent Military members have recently been asked to wear high heels and a dress so they can know what it is like to be a woman, speaks for itself.

A 22 Magnum that holds 30 rounds is just as deadly as the AR-15 is, and any 22 semi automatic fires at the similar rate of fire as the AR-15, as any other semi automatic rifle. The AR-15 is getting a bad rap mostly due to the media and those that desire to blame a weapon rather then whom resorted to using it in a crime.

 

[syco]

The very fact that the M-16 is indeed a weapon used by the Military is due to it's firing rate. Accuracy is also a factor, but not as much in a combat setting where a lot of firepower from an automatic weapon is vital.

Sadly I would not agree with someone giving an opinion claiming to be a Colonel in the US Army. Given the factors that recent Military members have recently been asked to wear high heels and a dress so they can know what it is like to be a woman, speaks for itself.

A 22 Magnum that holds 30 rounds is just as deadly as the AR-15 is, and any 22 semi automatic fires at the similar rate of fire as the AR-15, as any other semi automatic rifle. The AR-15 is getting a bad rap mostly due to the media and those that desire to blame a weapon rather then whom resorted to using it in a crime.

All semi auto guns have the same rate of fire . 1 bullet for each pull of trigger . As for ballistics .22lr , .22 WMR , .223/ 5.56 x 45 .......... not even close .

 

[Old as Dust]

All semi auto guns have the same rate of fire . 1 bullet for each pull of trigger . As for ballistics .22lr , .22 WMR , .223/ 5.56 x 45 .......... not even close .

Yes indeed SEMI automatic fire. As to deadly, all those rounds are deadly. Ballistics is not a total factor from one round to the other on the topic of deadly. No one in the mass shootings has used an automatic weapon. But all person(s) doing the mass shootings have one basic common factor, that is a person did the shooting, not the weapon nor the ammunition.

To debate the gun control issue, is moot. The US Constitution was put together to insure the USA could be a place to live with freedoms, including a method of keeping free against a corrupt tyrannical government not for sport shooting or rabbit hunting. Thus we have a 2nd amendment to keep our Constitution. So that ends my comments on this matter.

 

[Whitefang]

The news forgot to report other facts, you say he did not know how to drive, but drove himself in a F250 pickup truck to the area of the School. Where did the Truck come from?

The reason I will always support the ownership of a AR-15 is indeed the Second Amendment, for the purpose of why it is in the Constitution, so that we in the USA can protect the US Consitution and all our freedoms from a Government that wants to Abandon the rights and freedoms we enjoy and replace those freedoms with mandates and dictating.

They made a movie about a Country that the Government decided to take the right to bear arms from it's citizens...I am sure the name of that movie was Schindler's List. It was a true story.

And that 2nd amendment reads;

"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."

Far as I know, bearded beer bellies wearing camo and crying about being "sovereign citizens" aren't really a "militia", and are FAR from being "well regulated". And while it does claim the "right of people to keep and bear arms", it says NOTHING to disallow restricting the type of firearms "the people" are allowed to keep and bear. And likely too, it wasn't adopted into the Constitution in order to protect the country from it's own government, but to protect the country from outside invasion. And as far as Schindler's List goes...

That country you mention was probably Germany, which never DID have any "right to bear arms" in any kind of constitution. And that's not what the movie was about anyway. The true story you mention was of Oscar Schindler, a German industrialist who at the risk of his own life worked out ways to keep 1,200 Jews from perishing in the holocaust. And he did that all in POLAND, which was occupied by Germany in WWII and probably took away the guns from those citizens.

Whitefang

 

[backonthehorse]

I think mentality of US citizens keeps getting overlooked...

You guys talking about militias wouldn't stand a chance against military etc of course they wouldn't, you know that and I know that... but they don't know that... the entire thing is a farce starting with the indoctrination of people at a very young age..

Even you supporters of the 2nd amendment are a little off kilter (sorry)... IF a totalitarian gov comes into play, who will do their bidding? The politicians won't be forcing you to do xyz, it would be a "force" who make you do it... and who would that be? Most likely military...but they're normal folk, with normal friends and family...so you're describing civil war. It won't happen.

 

[soulman969]

Sadly I would not agree with someone giving an opinion claiming to be a Colonel in the US Army. Given the factors that recent Military members have recently been asked to wear high heels and a dress so they can know what it is like to be a woman, speaks for itself.

Sorry but your political preferences are showing. This is most absurd paragraph I've read yet. Who are you "claiming" to be? Do you think I'd have quoted someone "claiming" to be a Colonel in the US Army.

Ya' see that's the problem with some of you. You'll believe anyone they truck out on Faux News and the other propaganda networks who claim inside knowledge or expertise whereas most of us verify expertise.

You're being set up to doubt anything but what the right wing propagandist tell you and all they're doing is slowly walking you all right into the Fascist camp that surrounds TFG and the current GOP.

Wake the phuc up or soon you'll be living in WWII Germany right here.

 

[Davis Sharp]

The Constitution was written in 1787. It allowed slavery, but not a woman's right to vote. It is not infallible. Indeed, it has been amended 27 times.

As far as protection from tyranny, have you noticed that the people who are most vocal about preserving 2A are also the strongest supporters of the closest thing to a tyrant that we've ever had in the White House?

 

[Old as Dust]

Sorry but your political preferences are showing. This is most absurd paragraph I've read yet. Who are you "claiming" to be? Do you think I'd have quoted someone "claiming" to be a Colonel in the US Army.

Ya' see that's the problem with some of you. You'll believe anyone they truck out on Faux News and the other propaganda networks who claim inside knowledge or expertise whereas most of us verify expertise.

You're being set up to doubt anything but what the right wing propagandist tell you and all they're doing is slowly walking you all right into the Fascist camp that surrounds TFG and the current GOP.

Wake the phuc up or soon you'll be living in WWII Germany right here.

The Constitution was written in 1787. It allowed slavery, but not a woman's right to vote. It is not infallible. Indeed, it has been amended 27 times.

As far as protection from tyranny, have you noticed that the people who are most vocal about preserving 2A are also the strongest supporters of the closest thing to a tyrant that we've ever had in the White House?

Please show me where the Constitution allows for slavery? And then point out where it did not allow women to vote? While you are pointing that out I do not support the tryant in the White House, who has robbed the USA of honest elections, raised the prices for everything there is by the insanity and dementia riddled actions displayed every time they speak to every and all audience, the person whom claimes to be a professor, truck driver and the head of his class when all those things were a lie, a head sniffer and grouper of small children, whom wants to allow anyone and everyone to merely walk right into the USA., that has taken the USA from being energy dependant to ever raising prices on fuel and cutting off the food supply while blaming it on a war in Ukraine. Yes indeed, you can speak of some straight horse crap as yes your political agenda shows like lightning bolts so much you hate the freedoms we have enjoyed with your desires of having a loon run the USA and to take freedoms from law abiding citizens. Are you so filled with hate you can't be happy with drag queen shows for the little kids in your area? You like your tax money doled out for sex changes for prisoners? I could go on and list a million things YOU and your kind stand for, but it would be a waste of time.

When the PERSON whom does a crime is arrested and convicted that is justice served. To blame an AR-15 of shootings and not the person shooting, is the most insane thing anyone has heard, but those of you that think that way have a special need to always blame anyone else no matter what the topic may be.

Give your pal Alec Baldwin a call, tell him it was all fine he got away with shooting the camera operator on his film, maybe you thought that was great because no AR-15 was used.

The late Johnny Carson said it best, when God made the USA he tilted the USA so all the nuts and squirrels rolled out west and some landed in a few higher states.

You have been on this website long enough to know the topics of politics are not to be allowed, but one rule for thee and not me is a typical agenda that your kind always desire to live by.

 

[Old as Dust]

Sorry but your political preferences are showing. This is most absurd paragraph I've read yet. Who are you "claiming" to be? Do you think I'd have quoted someone "claiming" to be a Colonel in the US Army.

Ya' see that's the problem with some of you. You'll believe anyone they truck out on Faux News and the other propaganda networks who claim inside knowledge or expertise whereas most of us verify expertise.

You're being set up to doubt anything but what the right wing propagandist tell you and all they're doing is slowly walking you all right into the Fascist camp that surrounds TFG and the current GOP.

Wake the phuc up or soon you'll be living in WWII Germany right here.

When the loons in the White House now have their way, it will be worse then WWII Germany, and all you that support the insanity will be in the same boat as anyone else, wondering why they thought the media was their friendly CNN host spewing the twisted lies as always. For every "Colonel" you can come up with that speaks in YOUR favor of how weapons are, I can perhaps find a few million that will say a lot different. You "verified" the expertise of the Army Colonel did ya? Where did he serve?: Who did he command? Was his statement endorsed policy by the entire US Army or just his personal opinion? Was this the same lame that stated an AR-15 can cycle 100 rounds per second? You own an AR-15? You ever shot an M-16 or ANY weapon? Or is it that you want all cows to be gone because their farts are going to end all. life on earth?

So your statement about wake the phuc up, is that to mean anyone that does not agree with you and your agenda is going to be placed in prison camps like WWII? If so now you know why I own a ton of AR-15's and they are far from a weapon of war, but they do offer very good personal protection, along with shot guns and other rifles and pistols.

 

[Old as Dust]

I think mentality of US citizens keeps getting overlooked...

You guys talking about militias wouldn't stand a chance against military etc of course they wouldn't, you know that and I know that... but they don't know that... the entire thing is a farce starting with the indoctrination of people at a very young age..

Even you supporters of the 2nd amendment are a little off kilter (sorry)... IF a totalitarian gov comes into play, who will do their bidding? The politicians won't be forcing you to do xyz, it would be a "force" who make you do it... and who would that be? Most likely military...but they're normal folk, with normal friends and family...so you're describing civil war. It won't happen.

History always repeats itself, always. And you are correct that military folks are the ordinary man or woman with friends and family. Many of those will not comply with an order to disarm the public and some will. The mentality of the US Citizens indeed also gets overlooked at right now the silent majority has had enough of the bullcrap of putting America last.

In my neighborhood there is an Armory, I get to visit and chat with the younger fellows that are still in Uniform. They want NO part in disarming the public. And the Military might not win a "civil" war if ordered to respond to such an event, there are not enough members of the Military to engage the many many millions of gun owners whom will be willing to defend the rights enjoyed by the US Constituion for all a Citizens that desire to retain those freedoms.

Sad days when any item is blamed for the actions of the owner. Car wrecks cause far more death then an AR-15 or ANY weapon period in the USA, but I imagine if the flavor of the day with the media hype and tragedy to focus on Gun Control shifted to Cars, would you allow them to be made illegal? Don't tell me FAUX news created anything inless you can toss in CNN and the rest of the fake media sources.

Recently a big shot's husband wrecked his 2021 Porsche while drink driving. No charges now all dropped. The media leaves out the history of the person many years ago while drunk driving killed his very own brother. The Porsche wreck caused property damage so I think we should ban the Porsche cars. It was the car's fault the person got drunk and crashed.

 

[Noodling Guitars]

Interesting topic - I'm not going to comment on the politics of the discussion, but there are some points that I could help on.

Please show me where the Constitution allows for slavery?

Article I Section 9 Clause 1. The clause prohibited congress from limiting the right to "import" people (i.e. the 1800s way of saying "slavery") up until Jan 1, 1808. It's now generally known as the "Slave Trade" clause.

And then point out where it did not allow women to vote?

This is a bit more involved as it involved antiquated case law interpretation of the constitution. The general gist is that SCOTUS read the constitution to mean that men and women were equally "citizens" , but being a "citizen" did not confer the right to vote (Minor v. Happersett). Therefore, Missouri (the subject matter of the case) was allowed prohibit Minor (a woman) from voting. The state court actually concluded that the Constitution always intended to restrict voting rights to men only. SCOTUS agreed. The SCOTUS judgment is now commonly criticized as being poorly written and worded (at least that's what they taught us in law school). Nevertheless, it wasn't until the 19th amendment was passed that the constitutionality issue of whether states could impose restrictions on women's voting rights became moot.

 

[soulman969]

I'm not interested in debating this farther. This tells us what we need to know. Combine these facts with the fact that the majority of this country wants to see greater gun control and it is the only logical step toward reducing deaths from mass shootings. No one needs an AR15.

During the 1994-2004 ban:

In the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the annual number of incidents slowed down. Even including 1999’s Columbine High School massacre – the deadliest mass shooting during the period of the ban – the 1994 to 2004 period saw lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception.

From 2004 onward:

The data shows an almost immediate – and steep – rise in mass shooting deaths in the years after the assault weapons ban expired in 2004.

Breaking the data into absolute numbers, between 2005 and 2017 – the last year of our analysis – the average number of yearly deaths attributed to mass shootings was 25, compared with 5.3 during the 10-year tenure of the ban and 7.2 in the years leading up to the prohibition on assault weapons.

Saving hundreds of lives​

We calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the assault weapons ban was active. The proportion of overall gun homicides resulting from mass shootings was also down, with nine fewer mass-shooting-related fatalities per 10,000 shooting deaths.

 

[Old as Dust]

And that 2nd amendment reads;

"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."

Far as I know, bearded beer bellies wearing camo and crying about being "sovereign citizens" aren't really a "militia", and are FAR from being "well regulated". And while it does claim the "right of people to keep and bear arms", it says NOTHING to disallow restricting the type of firearms "the people" are allowed to keep and bear. And likely too, it wasn't adopted into the Constitution in order to protect the country from it's own government, but to protect the country from outside invasion. And as far as Schindler's List goes...

That country you mention was probably Germany, which never DID have any "right to bear arms" in any kind of constitution. And that's not what the movie was about anyway. The true story you mention was of Oscar Schindler, a German industrialist who at the risk of his own life worked out ways to keep 1,200 Jews from perishing in the holocaust. And he did that all in POLAND, which was occupied by Germany in WWII and probably took away the guns from those citizens.

Whitefang

Very accurate regarding Oscar Schindler. You did indeed understand the meaning of my statement on the movie and my opinion of the dangers of disarming a Nation. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.;

If you research the time and reasons for the US Constitution having the 2nd Amendment as to giving the rights to US the Citizens to keep Government in check, is exactly why it is there. We are a free Nation is the USA. Free even against an emeny from within or from other sources.

You have the same freedoms, the right to own and bear arms. It has no footnote saying the type of weapon or that meaning defined as to the type or make. It clearly stays away from that to ensure the rights shalll not be infringed. If you desire to not own an AR-15 that is your choice, it is your freedom BUT do not expect others to give up their rights because YOU want them to. Once you cross that line, it means if I want you to pay my house payment I should be able to make you do so.

 

[Old as Dust]

Interesting topic - I'm not going to comment on the politics of the discussion, but there are some points that I could help on.



Article I Section 9 Clause 1. The clause prohibited congress from limiting the right to "import" people (i.e. the 1800s way of saying "slavery") up until Jan 1, 1808. It's now generally known as the "Slave Trade" clause.



This is a bit more involved as it involved antiquated case law interpretation of the constitution. The general gist is that SCOTUS read the constitution to mean that men and women were equally "citizens" , but being a "citizen" did not confer the right to vote (Minor v. Happersett). Therefore, Missouri (the subject matter of the case) was allowed prohibit Minor (a woman) from voting. The state court actually concluded that the Constitution always intended to restrict voting rights to men only. SCOTUS agreed. The SCOTUS judgment is now commonly criticized as being poorly written and worded (at least that's what they taught us in law school). Nevertheless, it wasn't until the 19th amendment was passed that the constitutionality issue of whether states could impose restrictions on women's voting rights became moot.

Interesting topic - I'm not going to comment on the politics of the discussion, but there are some points that I could help on.



Article I Section 9 Clause 1. The clause prohibited congress from limiting the right to "import" people (i.e. the 1800s way of saying "slavery") up until Jan 1, 1808. It's now generally known as the "Slave Trade" clause.



This is a bit more involved as it involved antiquated case law interpretation of the constitution. The general gist is that SCOTUS read the constitution to mean that men and women were equally "citizens" , but being a "citizen" did not confer the right to vote (Minor v. Happersett). Therefore, Missouri (the subject matter of the case) was allowed prohibit Minor (a woman) from voting. The state court actually concluded that the Constitution always intended to restrict voting rights to men only. SCOTUS agreed. The SCOTUS judgment is now commonly criticized as being poorly written and worded (at least that's what they taught us in law school). Nevertheless, it wasn't until the 19th amendment was passed that the constitutionality issue of whether states could impose restrictions on women's voting rights became moot.

You still have not shown the Constitution prohibited women from voting NOR that a human had the right to own another human.

The legal events in state courts finally had to agree that women did indeed, have the right to vote and the 19th amendment was enacted to enforce that right. Because the legal system had to address these issues to set the record straight merely shows how political and prejudice our Nation was as a young Nation.

We had a President that made sure slavery ended as it should have never existed to begin with. Reading the Constitution strictly never gave anyone the right to own another human being. After many conflicting opinions of that topic eventually caused (in part) our civil war.

Doing the same with the second amendment in trying to impose taking weapons from US Citrizens could indeed result in another civil war.

 

[Noodling Guitars]

You still have not shown the Constitution prohibited women from voting NOR that a human had the right to own another human.

The legal events in state courts finally had to agree that women did indeed, have the right to vote and the 19th amendment was enacted to enforce that right. Because the legal system had to address these issues to set the record straight merely shows how political and prejudice our Nation was as a young Nation.

On the slavery point - that's more clear cut. The Slave Trade clause was there to prevent congress from enacting laws to remove the right to import and own slaves - because at the time of writing that "right" was already in existence! Article I Section 9 Clause 1 is a negative/restrictive clause on the powers of congress from limiting that right. I'm not sure how much more obvious it needs to be? This has nothing to do with the politics that came after, the civil war or whether people agreed/disagreed with that right - that's the politics side of things. As a matter of simple construction, that's what the clause did up to Jan 1, 1808.

The constitution itself is not a laundry list of all rights - but the constitution does protect unenumerated rights as well (see in particular the 9th amendment).

*EDIT* just so you actually understand this in the context of this topic. The 2nd Amendment does not confer the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is understood as a right that existed to begin with - all that the 2nd amendment did was to do the same thing that the Slave Trade clause did for owning slaves - it prevents congress from limiting that right. Read United States v. Cruikshank: see para 6:

6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

On the woman's voting rights point - again, the constitution did not have those exact words, but the effect back then was understood by many states and the federal courts to mean that women could be prohibited from voting, and such prohibitions were understood to be embedded in the constitution (and also interpreted that way) up until the 19th amendment. Perhaps if it makes you feel better, the way to put it in layman terms is that the Constitution was used and interpreted to prohibit women from voting. As the court concluded on para 34 of Minor:

34 Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we

35 AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.

Voting itself is an unenumerated right anyway (again, protected via case law interpretation/ 9th Amendment etc...) - can the scope of the right change over time? Yes, and it did. But all the while, it has always been a right derived from the constitution. If you cannot accept the notion that a SCOTUS decision on how the constitution should be interpreted has the effect of being the prevailing law at the time, then there's not much I can say to that.

 

[backonthehorse]

Oooof....

I think I'm done now...

I'll wrap this one up for me with (hopefully) my final piece on the matter:

Going back to the start, this is why terminology is important.. "blaming an AR15".. that is the sort of nuance that is suggested by the pro lobby because of the poor wording of the anti lobby...

I don't think anyone is intentionally blaming what is, when untouched, an inanimate object, however they are blaming the system in which someone can legally get hold of said object when clearly unstable. Because there is such fight back when greater restrictions are talked about, the next topic becomes OK, if you guys don't want to make it harder to GET the guns, then can we at least get rid of the guns that typically get used by the morons to do their bidding. Hence why the AR15 cops it.... plus as I mentioned, it's frequently admired by the tacticool "I would have been a 10 star general admiral ranger navy seal, but I had a headache on sign up to the military day" brigade...

If some lunatic uses a truck to plough through a crowd of people, yes we don't blame the truck, but we question how the lunatic got the truck, were there any red flags, did he pass the right tests to get the truck, should we limit access to certain trucks for certain groups.

Reality is, in the most of the US, you guys are legally able to own a weapon designed to kill (something), before you're considered mature enough to have a weak as piss beer in a bar... if that doesn't say something about questionable US maturity levels AND the potentially misplaced trustworthiness to be given a lethal weapon, then I don't know what else (besides dead people) can...

...and lastly, I loved going shooting with my dad, it's a hobby/sport/past time that I really hope to get back into (as well as guitar) one day. I don't know if I think guns or certain types should be banned, or age limits raised, or what, but realistically if this thread serves as a spectrum of US points of view, then all I can see is in the future is a Divided States of America and something resembling civil war... no one will come out of it as a winner.
@Old as Dust and if you are aware history repeats itself, you shouldn't cherry pick certain parts of history, you should look at it in its entirety... paranoia is also a huge influencer in many horrific incidents over history.