(08-16-2020, 12:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: False, they are exceedingly rare.



True.  Is your assertion that I, and millions of others, should surrender our rights because of the rare acts of criminals?  No thanks.


What do you mean, no reason?  That makes no sense.  If they confiscate your firearm due to a change in the law then they're doing it for a reason.  I do know of a man recently who had his guns taken away because he's racist.

https://reason.com/2020/07/30/gun-seized-apparently-for-being-a-racist-group-leader/


Your girl Kamala is on board with this;

https://reason.com/2019/08/19/kamala-harris-promises-to-disarm-violent-hate-by-seizing-guns-from-bigots/

Sounds like thought crime to me.  While I in no way endorse or condone racism of any stripe you can think what you want in this country, it's not a crime.  At least it isn't yet.  Remember, Winston, 2+2=5.

(08-16-2020, 01:40 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Lol.... yea right. What a joke of an answer. If I’m not mistaken we were averaging somewhere around a school shooting a week before COVID 45 hit.

Quote:You are going to have to give me a better example than a racist leader of a group that idolizes mass shooter Dylan roof and called for raping and murdering people and spoke about acquiring an illegal assault rifle. Seems exactly like the type these laws were designed for. I would call that working as intended. His weapon was not confiscated for no reason. I’m pretty sure law enforcement in this country has called out the dangers of the extreme right and the deaths they are responsible for.

Quote:Aren’t you in law enforcement? Do you think policies that prevent crimes are good?

Quote:Or are you just happy with status quo and the standard clean up after mass shootings and you give up and just accept them as a part of life?

(08-16-2020, 01:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: An utterly false statement.

(08-16-2020, 01:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You can't impose a tyrannical state on an armed populace.  The Framers knew this, hence the 2nd amendment.

(08-16-2020, 01:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Thought and speech are not a crime in this country.  The most vile person can spew the worst invectives about any group and it's still not a crime (good thing for Farrakhan).  If you want to make the "wrong kind" of speech and thought illegal then just say so.  Until that horrible day happens you shouldn't be punished for wrong think, no matter how odious that thinking is.



All laws are a balance between public safety and personal freedom.  "Assault weapons" bans, and "high capacity magazine" bans don't prevent crime.  Here's the thing about criminals, they tend to break the law.  The guy pulling a strong of armed robberies doesn't care that his "high capacity" magazine is illegal.  He also doesn't care about the extra time it carries as sentences tend to be served concurrently and the armed robbery carries far more confinement time.  So I'm in favor of good laws that target criminals, not feel good legislation that does nothing to prevent any crime but restricts the rights of law abiding citizens.  


They're not part of life, they are exceedingly rare.  99.999% of people will go their whole lives without being directly effected by one. 

(08-16-2020, 02:48 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mass-shootings-2019-more-than-days-365/

Quote:https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/15/us/2019-us-school-shootings-trnd/index.html

Quote:Sure let’s be scared to try different things because you refuse to believe there is a problem.

(08-16-2020, 02:57 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: At some point common sense needs to prevail. And when you start talking about raping and murdering and acquiring an illegal firearm while idolizing a mass shooter and matching the behavior of previous mass shooters there should be steps our law enforcement can take.

Quote:I’m not familiar with the law and all it entails. Can’t they get their guns back?

Quote:So maybe don’t be a racist mass shooter worshipping ass clown threatening raping and murdering and you won’t have to go through that stuff.

Quote:Or don’t tell your coworkers you are going to get your gun and come back and kill them all. Or your classmates.

(08-16-2020, 02:52 PM)hollodero Wrote: To be clear in advance, I usually see your points as consistent, as long as you presume that bearing all kinds or arms is a fundamental human right, or a fundamental american right. When I have different viewpoints, it's based on me questioning that premise, and it has to be.
But this specific point, I cannot agree with that. An armed populace is not a safeguard against tyrannical regimes. It might be if you assume that a vast majority of said populace is automatically opposed to a tyrannical regime, which imho does not have to be the case at all. Examples would be a bunch of african states, where numerous armed militias back tyrannical systems and murder opposing groups, often based on ethnicity, or other reasons. Giving people in those countries even more arms does not defy those tyrannical systems. It just would increase the death toll.

Is what I'd say to that.

Quote:I might also add that mass shootings are really rare in Europe and from that perspective, I have to call them quite frequent in the US in comparison. But sure, that is a matter of perspective.

(08-16-2020, 03:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except those African nations do not have a centuries long tradition of personal liberty.  There's a reason Russia keeps falling back into authoritarian rule, historically it's pretty much all they've ever know.  What a Russian will tolerate from their government is not the same as what an American will tolerate.  Isn't the standard trope about America that we prize personal liberty over the collective?  Isn't the resistance from some to wear a mask, and their stated reasons for doing so, an example of this very thing?  While I understand your point the comparison doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

(08-16-2020, 02:30 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Large is a subjective criteria.  Everything counts in large amounts


In this regard, purely legislative.

(08-16-2020, 01:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Semi-automatic weapons.  There's an enormous difference.

This statement is silly.  I do find it amusing that you can see the "steady creep" here but routinely mock me for seeing it in the Dem's gun control push.  Very interesting disconnect there.

(08-16-2020, 01:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You can't impose a tyrannical state on an armed populace.  The Framers knew this, hence the 2nd amendment.

(08-16-2020, 02:52 PM)hollodero Wrote: I might also add that mass shootings are really rare in Europe and from that perspective, I have to call them quite frequent in the US in comparison. But sure, that is a matter of perspective.

(08-16-2020, 03:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Here is my issue with that. The people that are making these claims, these cries for individual over collective, these displayers of Gadsden flags, are coming from the supporters of a person that is actively trying to undermine our democracy, which is tyranny. So a long history/tradition of personal liberty doesn't really matter in this regard.

(08-16-2020, 03:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Was waiting for this.  Under this definition the vast, vast majority of "mass shootings" are gang related.  Harken back to my previous point on this matter.  When most people think of a mass shooting they picture Parkland or the Mandalay Bay shooting, not some asshat gang members dumping on a crowd of people.




Ahh, this little nugget of treash.  Look at the criteria they used to define a "school shooting"

The shooting must involve at least one person being shot (not including the shooter).


The shooting must occur on school property, which includes but is not limited to buildings, athletic fields, parking lots, stadiums and buses.


We included accidental discharge of a firearm as long as the first two parameters are met, except in instances where the sole shooter is law enforcement or a security officer.


We included injuries sustained from BB guns, since the Consumer Product Safety Commission has identified them as potentially lethal.

When you include BB guns and negligent discharges as a "school shooting" you invalidate any point you're trying to make.



There is a problem.  The problem is criminals killing people.  Simple solution, lock them up for a long time.  Deny them bail.  Don't release them OR so they can keep killing.

https://cwbchicago.com/2020/05/more-men-charged-with-murder-while-free-on-affordable-bail-records-show.html

https://cwbchicago.com/2020/07/recognizance-bond-for-man-accused-of-having-gun-outside-gang-funeral-saturday.html

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/nyc-released-attempted-murderer-with-no-bail-feds-say-he-then-committed-three-more-shootings/

If you're concerned about people being murdered, and I believe you are, then focus on the people who actually commit the murders and advocate for their lengthy incarceration.  Don't release them early like AB109 in CA does, don't release criminals from jail or prison because of Covid, make them wear a mask like the rest of us.  You want to save lives, here's the way to actually do it, and it doesn't restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.

(08-16-2020, 03:52 PM)samhain Wrote: So they can take guns for no reason whatsoever?  Just come to your house and take your guns?  No suspicion of anything else?

(08-16-2020, 04:23 PM)Dill Wrote: Sure. Gun control--one of key historical indicators that a liberal democracy is going illiberal.  As if democracies could exist WITHOUT a free press, independent judiciary, and free and fair elections--but not WITH gun control.

VERY interesting disconnect.

Quote:LOL So if Saddam Hussein had been reading his American history, he'd never have been able to impose a tyrannical state on the armed Iraqi populace. Or maybe if that armed populace had read it? No tradition of "personal liberty"?

Quote:Same story for Afghanistan under the Taliban, though they never quite controlled the Northeast. Had a tradition of "personal liberty"? Check. Italy under Mussolini--tyrannical state or not?

(08-16-2020, 04:57 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Good points.

Doesn’t change my original thought that our country has a problem with mass shootings.

Quote:And the ones that do them usually have some red flags. Reactionary policing allows the crimes  to happen. I’m not afraid of trying a different approach to prevent them.

Quote:When I see some guns getting confiscated for no valid reason I’ll be with you claiming infringement.

Quote:I was looking for the part in the constitution where it talked about high capacity magazines and assault rifles but I guess I skimmed over it.

Quote:If we are allowed to arm ourselves to equally defend against own government then I want a nuclear sub and some trident nukes

(08-16-2020, 05:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You'll have to find the posts in which I advocated against a free press, independent judiciary and fair and free elections.  Then you'd have the basis for making this argument against me.  I'll wait.

I had no idea that private citizens in Saddam's Iraq had such free access to firearms.  In any event, see my response to Hollodero for a further argument against this type of point.

Wait, Afghanistan has widespread civilian firearms ownership and a tradition of personal liberty?  Fascinating.  Also, did Italy have widespread civilian access to firearms?  I'm anxious for your reply.

(08-16-2020, 05:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I just gave you an example.  We just disagree on what is valid. 



It's the "bear arms" part.  



I'm always amused when people try and counter what they label as extremism with an extremist example.  I'm fine with the government restricting the access to weapons of mass destruction.  A nuclear weapon has no use in personal defense.  I am reasonably sure you could buy a military submarine though, just not a nuclear one.

(08-16-2020, 11:52 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: "You can't impose a tyrannical state on an armed populace.  The Framers knew this, hence the 2nd amendment."


a tyrannical prez like trump could nuke cali because qanon senators voted for it because of pizzagate. nuclear sub is the only way to protect against that type of shit...