Thoughts and Prayers for the victims and Families in Orlando

Just saw in yesterday`s paper how a friend of one victim said that they "couldn`t believe that it happened" until O`s visit, whereupon seeing O somehow "made it real".
 
xspwrstang said:
No it`s not all weapons, my two brothers own hand guns, rifles and they themselves agree as I do, those weapons are useless for a civilian. I`m not for a gun ban at all. I think if you want to own a gun for your protection it should be your right to do so. But guns of that nature are simply useless guns IMHO! A normal person can protect their family/home with a handgun/shotgun/rifle...in all honesty, if an intruder comes into your house. It`s going to be dark in your home, you`re going to wake up half asleep, and if it comes to you shooting a gun inside your house it will be extremely loud....will you reach for your AR-15 and spray your house with bullets, or will a .45 be safer and easier to control?
Click to expand...

Same here. The "ban all guns" argument is thrown up every time someone calls for gun control.

Some people need to get it through their heads that the Supreme court upheld the 2nd Amendment`s application to individual gun rights, but they did not say those right are unlimited, and does not prohibit all regulation of guns.
 
heisenberg said:
Just need to go on a bit of rant here because it seems fitting, and I witnessed part of the overall problem in person yesterday:

I was in a small "mom and pop" chinese restaurant and I overheard two gentlemen having a very heated conversation about Orlando. They were going on and on about "the left" and how they knew how to solve all our problems: block immigrants from all other countries and "get back to our roots here". These were the same guys who were wearing Nike polos, using iPhones, driving a Japanese brand car, and eating in a chinese restaurant. What kind of mental gymnastics do you have to pull to not see the hypocrisy of that?

I`m not going to pretend to know how to fix what`s wrong with us(and there definitely is something wrong) but that kind of divisiveness is a poor way to start the repairing. Need to just take a couple of steps back and reevaluate things from here going forward instead of continuing to drudge up old issues. Really take a hard look at how we can cooperate - how can we come together and work towards the real enemy instead of distracting ourselves bickering over political BS and using these tragedies as a soundboard?
Click to expand...

This post makes no sense to me. So what if these guys were eating Chinese food and talking on iPhones? These are just imported goods and food from another country. So what?

So we need to stop the divisiveness and cooperate?

Really?

What if we did this with the Nazis, the Communists, or the Japanese Imperial Empire?

Sometimes talking just doesn`t work with these people - you have to fight.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Len_A said:
Same here. The "ban all guns" argument is thrown up every time someone calls for gun control.

Some people need to get it through their heads that the Supreme court upheld the 2nd Amendment`s application to individual gun rights, but they did not say those right are unlimited, and does not prohibit all regulation of guns.
Click to expand...

I believe the term in law is "slippery slope", a beach erodes, the sand doesn`t just magically fill back... neither do citizens rights.
 
People who think that "no civilian needs an `Assault Rifle` to defend himself" must live somewhere populated by amateur-hour criminals. What...I`m supposed to wait until I`ve been victimized and then call for help from "professionals" who aren`t any better skilled/trained than I am ( and probably not as well) so *they* can show up with *their* Assault Rifles?!? (I sold my last AR to a local LEO, great guy but I sincerely doubt he can run it as well under extreme stress as I can.)
 
Accumulator said:
People who think that "no civilian needs an `Assault Rifle` to defend himself" must live somewhere populated by amateur-hour criminals. What...I`m supposed to wait until I`ve been victimized and then call for help from "professionals" who aren`t any better skilled/trained than I am ( and probably not as well) so *they* can show up with *their* Assault Rifles?!? (I sold my last AR to a local LEO, great guy but I sincerely doubt he can run it as well under extreme stress as I can.)
Click to expand...
No, some politician that doesn`t have to worry about it because he/she has armed security knows what`s good for you
 
House of Wax said:
No, some politician that doesn`t have to worry about it because he/she has armed security knows what`s good for you
Click to expand...

Not just politicians either... A certain anti-gun Media Personality who`s internationally famous and practically worshiped by many people has used a pal of mine`s Security Co. When escorting this Personality his PSD guys are packing SERIOUS firepower, as in "not just an AR".
 
Accumulator said:
Not just politicians either... A certain anti-gun Media Personality who`s internationally famous and practically worshiped by many people has used a pal of mine`s Security Co. When escorting this Personality his PSD guys are packing SERIOUS firepower, as in "not just an AR".
Click to expand...
The hypocrisy knows no bounds
 
The Driver said:
I believe the term in law is "slippery slope", a beach erodes, the sand doesn`t just magically fill back... neither do citizens rights.
Click to expand...

No constitutional right is absolute. Not a single one, including the Second Amendment. If the First Amendment`s protection for freedom of speech and pres doesn`t disallow action for defamation, libel and slander, then the Second Amendment has limits as well, and in 2008 the Supreme Court ruled just that in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".

How is that a "slippery slope"? Answer - it isn`t - it`s the usual nonsense thrown up to obfuscate.
 
The Driver said:
I believe the term in law is "slippery slope", a beach erodes, the sand doesn`t just magically fill back... neither do citizens rights.
Click to expand...
Agree completely, when rights and privileges (read freedoms) are taken from you they are seldom given back. It is a very slippery slope, once gone, they`re gone. There is no question in my mind the intention behind 2nd amendment.
 
The slippery slope comes into play when they ban AR-15`s and it doesn`t do squat to curb mass murder (or Islamic terrorism), so then they ban the next thing, and then the next thing. Everyone and their brother knows it would never stop with banning just AR-15`s
 
Len_A said:
No constitutional right is absolute. Not a single one, including the Second Amendment. If the First Amendment`s protection for freedom of speech and pres doesn`t disallow action for defamation, libel and slander, then the Second Amendment has limits as well, and in 2008 the Supreme Court ruled just that in In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".

How is that a "slippery slope"? Answer - it isn`t - it`s the usual nonsense thrown up to obfuscate.
Click to expand...

Defamation, Libel and Slander must be proven in court, on a case by case basis. They do not pertain to a general population like restricting a supposed type of gun (LOL @ that fact an AR15 is an assault rifle, most states is a 6-8 round clip.) Most hand guns are more deadly with a banana 30 round clip and hand guns are far more deadly because of their ability to be concealed. Ever wonder why saw`d off shotguns are highly illegal in most states?

That really is apples to oranges...
 
The banning of fully automatic weapons shows that the second Amendment is not absolute. I believe some weapons of war are included like LAWs (light anti tank weapons) and M203 grenade launcher type weapons (my personal favorite from my military days). A common sense approach can never be determined, because everyone`s definition of common sense seems to vary from person to person. On another front, last night I saw something that reminded me of Apocalypse Now. At about 10:45 p.m. I drove past a government housing complex in Waycross, GA. There were between 15-20 police/sheriff vehicles and three ambulances all with flashing lights, quite a scary sight. Found out this morning 4 people were shot 3 dead. No reason was reported. We have too much gun violence and no one knows how to begin to stop it. It`s easy to blame the NRA, but all they do is give money to the campaigns of politicians that support their point of view, it better to blame the people that support the NRA. Always follow the money.
 
rlmccarty2000 said:
The banning of fully automatic weapons shows that the second Amendment is not absolute. I believe some weapons of war are included like LAWs (light anti tank weapons) and M203 grenade launcher type weapons (my personal favorite from my military days). ...
Click to expand...
Exactly. They need to reinstate the original assault weapons ban from 1994.
 
rlmccarty2000 said:
It`s easy to blame the NRA, but all they do is give money to the campaigns of politicians that support their point of view, it better to blame the people that support the NRA. Always follow the money.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of what my friend said when I asked him why don`t we raise the speed limits? The cars are better engineered right? His reply, did the people?...
 
The Driver said:
They should, however the AR15 is not an assault weapon. So by liberals standards it`s worthless.
Click to expand...

Typical strawman arguement.

And btw, under the original assault weapons ban of 1994, any semiauto version of a military automatic weapon is an assault weapon.

If it takes a magazine and has two or more of the following:

A pistol grip

A flash suppressor or a threaded barrel to accept one

A folding or telescoping stock

It`s an assault weapon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top