Three 3rd graders, three adults killed by shooter at Nashville elementary school

[I_M4_AU 9,031]

7 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

The constitution didn't prevent an assault weapons ban before and it won't prevent it in the future. A plot to disarm America?  That is just silly ... really preposterous.  Was America disarmed in 1996?

This has nothing to do with trannies.  For crying out loud, why does the far right want to throw that into every discussion?  I know why.  Fox News, Tucker Carlson and the gang.

Again, what benefit is society gaining vs. what danger they pose.  People are no less free in the U.K, Canada, Australia, Japan etc, but they are safer.

Did you not see where in 8 short years the left has basically changed the way parents have control over their own children and the Board of Education teaching gender identity.  It what the left does, chip away at freedom.

Ask the Aussy’s how free they felt when their country required a vaccine and isolation from society if they refused. 

Our President tried the same thing and the SCOTUS shot him down.  Thank God for our Constitution.

[Son of A Tiger 649]

Just now, AU9377 said:

I agree.  Their lifespan is surpassing the U.S. lifespan and their quality of life is now consistently seen as superior.  I think that is a sad set of affairs, resulting in part from the unyielding stubbornness of some Americans and our fractured political system.

I don't want to open that can of worms but I would note they don't have open borders with all kinds of people coming in with guns, drugs, etc.

[AU9377 6,095]

5 minutes ago, Son of A Tiger said:

I don't want to open that can of worms but I would note they don't have open borders with all kinds of people coming in with guns, drugs, etc.

We don't have open borders either.  If we did, there wouldn't be a line to apply for asylum.  We do have immigration issues, but they need to be addressed and our immigration laws need to be reformed.  You can't hate people wanting to come here from Central and South America while at the same time making money from them being here.  One of the most conservative people I know in Cobb County publicly rants about the numbers of immigrants, yet he owns at least three old apartment buildings full of them that pay him cash monthly for rent.  His son in law owns an roofing company that employs immigrants almost exclusively.  We cannot have our cake and eat it too.

Edited March 30, 2023 by AU9377

[Son of A Tiger 649]

We have to be very careful in banning any kind of gun. Books never killed anyone but books are being banned because they don't fit someone's narrative or politics.

[I_M4_AU 9,031]

11 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Yeah, we are better off having this decision made by guys who lived 200+ years ago and, only knew a gun as a musket.  Very intelligent.

People have the right to self defense and also the responsibility to their fellow man.  Reasonable people can do both.  You have no trust in your fellow man, I hope you don’t own firearms.

[I_M4_AU 9,031]

1 minute ago, Son of A Tiger said:

We have to be very careful in banning any kind of gun. Books never killed anyone but books are being banned because they don't fit someone's narrative or politics.

I agree with the first part, but books are not being banned.  They have been taken out of school libraries as they are not suitable for school children, but those some books are still available in any book store.

[Son of A Tiger 649]

2 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

We don't have open borders either.  If we did, there wouldn't be a line to apply for asylum.

Surely you kid.

[I_M4_AU 9,031]

4 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

We don't have open borders either.  If we did, there wouldn't be a line to apply for asylum.

Is that you Mayorkas?

[TitanTiger 21,516]

29 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

When you take assault away from the description you end up banning all semiautomatic rifles, even the ones used for hunting.  Most states will not allow an AR-15 to be used in hunting as the ammo is not damaging enough and maybe hurtful to wildlife which may suffer because of that.

Not when you define the weapons by the metrics I mentioned.  Terms like "assault", "military style", or "scary looking boom stick" are irrelevant if you're looking at the weapon's measurables and capabilities.

And while I can't speak to what an AR-15 will do to various wildlife, it inflicts catastrophic damage on human bodies.

 

29 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I’m not an expert on weaponry, but I know enough to know the people that will be putting restrictions on the general public know less than the average gun owner.

Which is why I'm giving a framework of metrics instead of just the opinions of novices on how scary a weapon looks to them.

 

29 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Longer waiting periods would not have helped with this latest shooting.  She bought 7 guns over a period of time.  Waiting periods help takes the emotions out of the purchase which is not a bad thing, but guns are accessible in the black market.  Securing that market would be a better way of restricting accessibility.

But it would help in many situations.  It also gives time for the required level of background checks.  Regardless, it was just one aspect of a multi-faceted approach.

 

29 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Mental health evals are only good until the person leaves the doctors office.  It could be used as a filter for those that believe they maybe unstable and/or show if these people are not aware of some underlining psychological issue not known.  This one is dicey as it is a restriction to ownership and I’m not sure how it gets around *shall not be infringed*.

Again, none of these things are in isolation from each other.  It's one component over an overall strategy or framework.

And again, all our rights have limits.  They are not free from any restrictions.  Take the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now, the Constitution clearly says Congress can't make any law prohibiting speech or abridging it in any way.  Yet, we have laws making it a crime to do things like yelling "fire" in a crowded venue, causing a panic and stampede where people could be injured or killed.  We have laws that make it a crime to knowingly tell damaging and defamatory lies about another person publicly.  You're subject to criminal and civil penalties for doing so.  One could say that these things "prohibit" or "abridge" our freedom of speech  - depending on circumstances and the possible harm done to others. 

Why should the right to bear arms be any different.

And I'll repeat - this thing about "shall not be infringed" - we already to do this!  You aren't allowed to have or bear many times of arms from certain fully automatic rifles, to fully operational Abrams tanks, to F-16 fighter with cruise missiles, to various types of explosive devices.

 

29 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

It seems like *Red Flag Laws* would be something to look at as it allows the public to be involved as long as it not abused.

The debate is congress will be interesting, but a ban on any weapon now in use, to me, would be a non starter.

Red Flag Laws are a piece.  It's not enough though.

If a weapon in use is proving to be too lethal and too easy to access for people that may have evil intent, you can't turn every public venue into a military compound.  It starts to make sense that you look at making possessing and obtaining such weapons harder, with higher bars to clear in terms of background and mental health and such, or in some cases illegal. 

[I_M4_AU 9,031]

11 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

If a weapon in use is proving to be too lethal and too easy to access for people that may have evil intent, you can't turn every public venue into a military compound.  It starts to make sense that you look at making possessing and obtaining such weapons harder, with higher bars to clear in terms of background and mental health and such, or in some cases illegal. 

If this is your standard (and I know you are just focused on the AR-15) we should ban the semiautomatic pistol first.  If causes more deaths in America that any other firearm.  This is the way of the left and the reason I am leery of your proposals.  I understand where you are coming from and your intentions are reasonable, but knowing how government overreaches, banning any gun is not on the table for me.

ETA: the debate in congress will be highly entertaining 

Edited March 30, 2023 by I_M4_AU

[I_M4_AU 9,031]

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

Is the main reason many oppose banning the AR-15 because of fear of "slippery slope?" 

Other than having something that like for a ranch or playing commando on the weekends what else would you need one for? I am pro gun........but don't have an AR and don't really get all the fuss for wanting one. 

 

The slippery slope is exactly why I oppose the ban.  The gun that is responsible for the most deaths in America is the semiautomatic handgun.  If the *assault weapons* ban is successful, how long before the handgun ban is being brought up?

You can alway depend on government overreach.

[I_M4_AU 9,031]

1 hour ago, arein0 said:

How would you solve the mass shooting issues in the US?

Solve?  In todays world with all the emphasis on the individual being superior to the whole, it would be impossible.  It would take a long time, but a more family oriented approach to life would be preferable then what we are seeing now.

 

[TitanTiger 21,516]

12 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

If this is your standard (and I know you are just focused on the AR-15) we should ban the semiautomatic pistol first.  If causes more deaths in America that any other firearm.  This is the way of the left and the reason I am leery of your proposals.  I understand where you are coming from and your intentions are reasonable, but knowing how government overreaches, banning any gun is not on the table for me.

ETA: the debate in congress will be highly entertaining 

We

Already

Ban

Some

Guns.

[I_M4_AU 9,031]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

We

Already

Ban

Some

Guns.

I’m sorry.  I should have said banning any more guns would be off the table for me.

[CoffeeTiger 5,938]

25 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

People have the right to self defense and also the responsibility to their fellow man.  Reasonable people can do both.  You have no trust in your fellow man, I hope you don’t own firearms.

 

lol.....yeah, nothing says having "Trust in your fellow man" like a society where everyone feels like they need guns and weapons to protect themselves from their neighbors and their own government. 

 Maybe all this "trust" you're placing in other people to handle their guns correctly isn't working out so well considering we keep having these shootings and deaths happening over and over and over again. 

[TitanTiger 21,516]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

I’m sorry.  I should have said banning any more guns would be off the table for me.

So then the issue really isn't what the 2nd Amendment says at all.  You already support the banning of certain arms.  All we're debating now is where to draw the line.

[I_M4_AU 9,031]

3 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

lol.....yeah, nothing says having "Trust in your fellow man" like a society where everyone feels like they need guns and weapons to protect themselves from their neighbors and their own government. 

 Maybe all this "trust" you're placing in other people to handle their guns correctly isn't working out so well considering we keep having these shootings and deaths happening over and over and over again. 

You do always miss the point.  Have you ever heard the term *Trust, but verify*?  It’s actually a Russian saying the Reagan used during the Cold War.  I trust my fellow man until he gives me a reason not to.  That trust can be broken if my fellow man breaks into my home without being invited or tries to steel something of mine or attempts bodily harm.

Same goes for the government.  It hasn’t happened yet, but increasingly it needs to be verified.  The gun ownership is a deterrent to the government.  Could you imagine if our military were to be given orders to attack American citizens?  Waco, maybe.

Biden has all but threatened using F-16s on the population to try to make a point.  The man just doesn’t think.

As to trusting other people to handle their guns correctly;  if they don’t that is what the police are for.  See MNPD’s handling of the Nashville shooter.

[I_M4_AU 9,031]

14 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

So then the issue really isn't what the 2nd Amendment says at all.  You already support the banning of certain arms.  All we're debating now is where to draw the line.

Basically.  My contention is that the gun grab is over.  Find another way.

[TitanTiger 21,516]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

Basically.  My contention is that the gun grab is over.  Find another way.

No, whether you're willing to admit it or not, you understand the concept that certain kinds of arms are too lethal, too damaging for regular people to own - or at least that they can't obtain or own them without a lot more restrictions and bars to rise over than just your average shotgun or handgun.

[arein0 1,109]

34 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Solve?  In todays world with all the emphasis on the individual being superior to the whole, it would be impossible.  It would take a long time, but a more family oriented approach to life would be preferable then what we are seeing now.

 

So what I'm hearing you say in this thread is that you see that there is a problem and can't see a way to solve the issue. Since you can't think of a solution, you don't want to try any kind of solution. Even if it's as simple as putting up more barriers to purchasing guns (we already have barriers) or putting restrictions on the type of gun (we already have restrictions on the type of gun). I believe there is no such thing as an impossible problem. It's only impossible if you lose hope and quit.

[autigeremt 7,254]

23 hours ago, AU9377 said:

We have had an assault weapons ban before.

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.

When this was written, there were no weapons like the ones we are discussing today.  Furthermore, the Constitution is a governing document that is meant to guide.  Amending the constitution is very difficult, but not impossible. 

Historically, we have been forced to rely on the judicial branch to save us from ourselves.  We would have never reached the ideals put forth by the founding of this country but for an active court. 

What is happening is the far right over playing their hand on this issue.  I don't know when it will be or how bad things will get before it happens, but at some point, the backlash will be severe and the result will be far greater restrictions than any proposed.

When it was written, muskets were AR-15s. 

[autigeremt 7,254]

21 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

No, whether you're willing to admit it or not, you understand the concept that certain kinds of arms are too lethal, too damaging for regular people to own - or at least that they can't obtain or own them without a lot more restrictions and bars to rise over than just your average shotgun or handgun.

I’m a regular person and I don’t intend on using my AR platform on anyone unless they cross a line. The gun isn’t the root cause….it’s a means to an end for those with evil intent. 

[TitanTiger 21,516]

1 minute ago, autigeremt said:

When it was written, muskets were AR-15s. 

I suppose then if they come out with an affordable fully operational and armed Apache attack helicopter for the masses, we shouldn't have any restrictions on it beyond obtaining a pilot's license.

[I_M4_AU 9,031]

17 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

No, whether you're willing to admit it or not, you understand the concept that certain kinds of arms are too lethal, too damaging for regular people to own - or at least that they can't obtain or own them without a lot more restrictions and bars to rise over than just your average shotgun or handgun.

I don’t agree.  I don’t understand the term *too lethal*.  Every gun is lethal, the severity of the gun is irrelevant.  It’s like having a Honda with a 150 hp 4 cylinder and then buying a muscle car with a 620 HP engine.  You better find out how to handle the increase in HP before you put your foot down on the pedal the first time.  It a person’s responsibility to educate himself.

[TitanTiger 21,516]

1 minute ago, autigeremt said:

I’m a regular person and I don’t intend on using my AR platform on anyone unless they cross a line. The gun isn’t the root cause….it’s a means to an end for those with evil intent. 

My other posts in this thread that led up to the one you're responding to.  No inanimate object is the "root cause."  Hell, for that matter a suitcase nuke "isn't the root cause, it's just a means to an end for those with evil intent."  Neither would a fully operational Abrams class tank.  But we rightly either make private citizens owning one illegal or heavily restricted (you likely could buy the tank if you had the funds, but it would have to be modified so it couldn't fire weapons for instance).