Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

I'll go back to my original comment. It's easier for me to own a gun than it is for me to own and operate a car or travel on an airplane. That's ****ed up.

No, no it is not easier. It is the same thing, if not harder to buy/own a gun.

[St. Clown]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

If true, what's wrong with a few more, then? Like limiting clip sizes and whatnot.

And if people need ID's to vote- which is an amendment- why can't a ID requirement for all guns be allowed?

Would adding more gun laws to our existing plethora of laws have done anything to stop this man who had no prior criminal record? Yes, he was under investigation by federal authorities, but being under investigation is not cause to deny someone their rights as he was never charged, least of all found guilty. He had a clean criminal record up until Saturday night. What law could you reasonably create that would have prevented such an attack? After entering that night club, he has already broken countless laws concerning existing weapons laws. What good would adding a couple more onto the heap do?

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

We regulate speech. We regulate Churches. We regulate everything in the Constitution. Your argument is BS.

We regulate guns now too.
Go to Cabella's, right now, and try to buy a long gun, shot gun, or hand gun.
They'll be running you through the FBI database as part of the sale.

[Jimjamesak]

We regulate guns now too.
Go to Cabella's, right now, and try to buy a long gun, shot gun, or hand gun.
They'll be running you through the FBI database as part of the sale.

Craigslist is easier, cheaper, and anonymous.

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

We regulate guns now too.
Go to Cabella's, right now, and try to buy a long gun, shot gun, or hand gun.
They'll be running you through the FBI database as part of the sale.

And if you try to buy a handgun (or an AR, FYI) they'll tell you leave and come back with a purchase permit.

[alfablue]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Would adding more gun laws to our existing plethora of laws have done anything to stop this man who had no prior criminal record? Yes, he was under investigation by federal authorities, but being under investigation is not cause to deny someone their rights as he was never charged, least of all found guilty. He had a clean criminal record up until Saturday night. What law could you reasonably create that would have prevented such an attack? After entering that night club, he has already broken countless laws concerning existing weapons laws. What good would adding a couple more onto the heap do?

Had there been a restriction on the gun, it's likely that the number dead would be fewer. Fewer rounds in a clip is a good start, a rate of fire limit would be a good thing, a speed of clip change limit would be a good thing- none of those would change the legal use of an automatic weapon, realistically.

I don't think people are saying that the crime itself would have been prevented, but the scale of it probably would be changed. And that would be a good thing.

Why does the measure of a law have to be 100% when you and everyone else knows that 100% is not possible?

(then again, I'd like to repeat that women should feel more empowered to turn in abuse. If that allegation was true, and the first wife turned him in, it's likely that none of this would have happened by this guy)

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

What makes the 2nd so much riskier to regulate than any other Amendment?

We have regulations of what defines a religion, we have regulations of what actually defines free speech, we have regulations on what the press can do. There are openings in the search window that is gaping large, the time of "speedy" is large- and we know not all court proceedings are public, there are a LOT of voting rules, etc.

For every amendment- there are checks and balances for every law written that has to do with each amendment, too.

I don't see how regulation of the 2nd is any different than regulation of all the rest. All of which are still in place, applicable, and laws concerning them are constantly being heard in court.

Otherwise, you need to do a better job about the rest of the Amendments to lift the regulations on them, equally. Which I haven't seen happening.

Did they not teach the definition of "shall not be infringed" at Michigan? The point of this is to defend against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. And sometimes, that can even an oppressive government that is attempting to enslave you by means of control. Should people be responsible with their handling of this? Absolutely. However, once you get some third party to regulate every person's "responsibility", that is saying that you wish to live as a slave to that third party and accept whatever "scraps" that third party throws to you.

[Kepler]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Willing to use it, and wanting to/actually doing it are 2 different things. If you pull the gun, you have to be willing to use it, but that doesn't mean it still isn't the last resort.

That gets at what I'm asking (I have never taken a gun safety course other than 5 minutes of dos and donts before shooting as a guest at a range). Are people trained to pull their gun as a last resort, or are they trained to pull their gun as an intermediate step to try to stop the attacker? Is "show him what you've got for him" a step in the process? In an attack situation where time is essential and the attacker may have a weapon which he can use before you fire, that seems problematic.

[alfablue]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

We regulate guns now too.
Go to Cabella's, right now, and try to buy a long gun, shot gun, or hand gun.
They'll be running you through the FBI database as part of the sale.

So then regulation to try to prevent the scale of this kind of event should be ok, then.

[Jimjamesak]

And if you try to buy a handgun (or an AR, FYI) they'll tell you leave and come back with a purchase permit.

Not in Alaska.

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Not in Alaska.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I am referencing laws in MN, since that is what I'm familiar with.

[Handyman]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Would adding more gun laws to our existing plethora of laws have done anything to stop this man who had no prior criminal record? Yes, he was under investigation by federal authorities, but being under investigation is not cause to deny someone their rights as he was never charged, least of all found guilty. He had a clean criminal record up until Saturday night. What law could you reasonably create that would have prevented such an attack? After entering that night club, he has already broken countless laws concerning existing weapons laws. What good would adding a couple more onto the heap do?

Ok leave this incident out...if new laws can prevent 1 of these attacks is that enough?

Seriously, what is the fear here? No one wants to take away your guns or ban them...what exactly will these new regs do to harm the individual?

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Had there been a restriction on the gun, it's likely that the number dead would be fewer. Fewer rounds in a clip is a good start, a rate of fire limit would be a good thing, a speed of clip change limit would be a good thing- none of those would change the legal use of an automatic weapon, realistically.

I don't think people are saying that the crime itself would have been prevented, but the scale of it probably would be changed. And that would be a good thing.

Why does the measure of a law have to be 100% when you and everyone else knows that 100% is not possible?

(then again, I'd like to repeat that women should feel more empowered to turn in abuse. If that allegation was true, and the first wife turned him in, it's likely that none of this would have happened by this guy)

How do you limit how fast a person can pull a trigger?

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Like limiting clip sizes and whatnot.

The correct term is "magazine". Paper uses clips.

A magazine size limit just means swapping magazines more often.

The media reports state the folks in Orlando cowered while the guano loco gay Muslim updated his Facebook, called 911 to align to ISIS, and made a call to a television station. If the magazine limit is to force an active shooter to reload, and thus give the folks a chance to overpower him, hey, updating Facebook take much longer than to swap magazines. Why didn't folks overpower him?


PS - The "whatnot" makes folks like me want to disregard your opinion. If you are going to be against something, please understand it beyond a "whatnot" level. I'm not trying to be a jerk; I'm trying to help you make better arguments.

[Handyman]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Did they not teach the definition of "shall not be infringed" at Michigan? The point of this is to defend against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. And sometimes, that can even an oppressive government that is attempting to enslave you by means of control. Should people be responsible with their handling of this? Absolutely. However, once you get some third party to regulate every person's "responsibility", that is saying that you wish to live as a slave to that third party and accept whatever "scraps" that third party throws to you.

And you still dont understand what infringing means...