Bill Frists thoughts on Gun Control

[GoAU 1,696]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

 (Oh btw, using the term Soros-backed is a "tell". )

As if supporting the Second Amendment isn’t???  LOL

[homersapien 12,302]

On 5/10/2023 at 5:01 AM, GoAU said:

Not sure how you’d limit “killing efficiency” given that the point of the 2A is to provide the people the right to self defense against foreign and domestic tyranny.   I am not opposed to current requirements for fully automatic weapons if that’s what you’re asking, although I could see where one could (if so inclined) make the case for them.   I do feel the current rules surrounding short barreled rifles and suppressors are total garbage and likely to be repealed.  

Kind of ironic that I would have to inform a veteran that we have a national military that is charged with that responsibility.

And domestic "tyranny" is not a problem.  We have laws and the vote to address that.

Domestic terrorism is a problem, but that originates from the right wing / gun rights perspective.

Edited May 12, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 12,302]

On 5/10/2023 at 9:24 PM, GoAU said:

Regarding the militia - that is EXACTLY what the founding fathers intended.  They just fighting for independence from a tyrannical government.   Their intent was to ensure the government was subservient to the people and not the other way around.   

 

Nonsense. 

Violent anarchy is not going to preserve anyone's rights. If we get to the point where violence is the only way to change policy, the country is already lost. 

To put it another way, a government that is subservient to an armed mob is not a government at all. 

It's a mythical, nihilistic policy.

 

 

Edited May 13, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 12,302]

18 hours ago, GoAU said:

If you would like to get literal, we’re not truly talking about “assault rifles” as the term refers to select fire weapons.   You are referring to the hijacking of the term and misapplying it to semi automatic rifles, but I assume you know that (and throw the term around anyway).  
 

Banning them would have close to no effect on firearm homicides either, as they are used in less than 1% of homicides.  And when the needle doesn’t move, I assume you’ll move along to pistols?  
 

The mystery revision to the CDCs gun study is detailed here.  You will see what I’m talking about in removing information that was published for YEARS…  

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/cdc-quietly-removes-defensive-gun-use-studies/amp/

 

Selective fire is a totally moot point.

Semi-auto doesn't change the fact assault rifles are military designs meant for killing large numbers of people efficiently.  (I am sure you already know that.)

Banning assault rifles them would have an effect on mass shootings as they are the obvious weapon of choice for such attacks.

Finally - as the owner of a shotgun, a (civilian) BAR and a snub-nosed revolver -  I say your "slippery slope" argument is pure BS and irrelevant to the topic. 

[homersapien 12,302]

I have some relevant questions for you AU:  

You've made the point several times that, (I paraphrase) the second amendment was intended to act as a counter or remedy for "the people" to respond to government "tyranny",  and you fully endorse that conceptually and historically.

Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols bombed the Murrow Federal Building in Oklahoma City killing 168 people- mostly federal employees - including many of their children. Their motivation was reported as follows:

"They expressed anger at the federal government's handling of the 1992 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) standoff with Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge, as well as the Waco siege, a 51-day standoff in 1993 between the FBI and Branch Davidian members that began with a botched Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) attempt to execute a search warrant. There was a firefight and ultimately a siege of the compound, resulting in the burning and shooting deaths of David Koresh and 75 others.^[21] In March 1993, McVeigh visited the Waco site during the standoff, and again after the siege ended.^[22] He later decided to bomb a federal building as a response to the raids and to protest what he believed to be US government efforts to restrict rights of private citizens, in particular those under the Second Amendment.^{[10][23][24][25][26]} McVeigh believed that federal agents were acting like soldiers, thus making an attack on a federal building an attack on their command centers.^[27]"

1) Was their motivation for this incident consistent with your endorsement of violence as a valid threat or option to counter government misbehavior or tyranny? 

2) If not, why?

3) Can you provide a hypothetical scenario or situation in which a "2nd Amendment response" would be appropriate?

4) Can you provide speculation on how that "response" would be organized and carried out practically speaking?

 

[homersapien 12,302]

19 hours ago, GoAU said:

As if supporting the Second Amendment isn’t???  LOL

This is not about supporting - or opposing - the second amendment, it's about interpreting it.

[GoAU 1,696]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Kind of ironic that I would have to inform a veteran that we have a national military that is charged with that responsibility.

And domestic "tyranny" is not a problem.  We have laws and the vote to address that.

Domestic terrorism is a problem, but that originates from the right wing / gun rights perspective.

Germany, Russia and China all had laws to prevent tyranny too, right?   All banned guns and within a few years killed millions of their own people.  
 

Waiting until there’s a problem is too late.  You are a trusting individual- placing all trust for you and your family in other peoples hands…..

[GoAU 1,696]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Selective fire is a totally moot point.

Semi-auto doesn't change the fact assault rifles are military designs meant for killing large numbers of people efficiently.  (I am sure you already know that.)

Banning assault rifles them would have an effect on mass shootings as they are the obvious weapon of choice for such attacks.

Finally - as the owner of a shotgun, a (civilian) BAR and a snub-nosed revolver -  I say your "slippery slope" argument is pure BS and irrelevant to the topic. 

So, if it’s a moot point, does this mean you’re OK with legalizing them?  
 

Actually l, they are NOT the weapon of choice in mass shootings, handguns are (75%+ of the time).  However, gun grabbers like you know you have no chance in that at first, so you’re starting with the “big, evil assault rifles” to get a foothold.  
 

Just because you happen to old a few archaic firearms doesn’t give you any sort of leverage or moral high ground.  The Fudd guns you own are the only thing irrelevant to this conversation.  

[GoAU 1,696]

19 minutes ago, homersapien said:

This is not about supporting - or opposing - the second amendment, it's about interpreting it.

And your interpretation is incorrect- it has absolutely zero to do with hunting rifles or snub nosed revolvers.  

[wdefromtx 3,712]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Selective fire is a totally moot point.

Semi-auto doesn't change the fact assault rifles are military designs meant for killing large numbers of people efficiently.  (I am sure you already know that.)

Banning assault rifles them would have an effect on mass shootings as they are the obvious weapon of choice for such attacks.

Finally - as the owner of a shotgun, a (civilian) BAR and a snub-nosed revolver -  I say your "slippery slope" argument is pure BS and irrelevant to the topic. 

How many lives will banning assault weapons save a year? Yes, I know even one life is important....but how many lives will be saved if we still keep shotguns, hunting rifles, revolvers, and semi-auto pistols? 

[aubiefifty 18,439]

19 hours ago, GoAU said:

If you would like to get literal, we’re not truly talking about “assault rifles” as the term refers to select fire weapons.   You are referring to the hijacking of the term and misapplying it to semi automatic rifles, but I assume you know that (and throw the term around anyway).  
 

Banning them would have close to no effect on firearm homicides either, as they are used in less than 1% of homicides.  And when the needle doesn’t move, I assume you’ll move along to pistols?  
 

The mystery revision to the CDCs gun study is detailed here.  You will see what I’m talking about in removing information that was published for YEARS…  

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/cdc-quietly-removes-defensive-gun-use-studies/amp/

 

do you own a bump stock with that ar?

[aubiefifty 18,439]

8 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

How many lives will banning assault weapons save a year? Yes, I know even one life is important....but how many lives will be saved if we still keep shotguns, hunting rifles, revolvers, and semi-auto pistols? 

weak sauce bro.

[wdefromtx 3,712]

Just now, aubiefifty said:

weak sauce bro.

 

How so?

Are you good with giving up practically all rights to guns? Which is my point because he says that as a firearm owner he is not worried about a "slippery slope." 

[aubiefifty 18,439]

Just now, wdefromtx said:

 

How so?

Are you good with giving up practically all rights to guns? Which is my point because he says that as a firearm owner he is not worried about a "slippery slope." 

they do not want everyone's guns just the military grade weapons. it is my understanding the bullets are special made to tumble and do more damage? are you for keeping bump stocks legal? i have asked on the bump stocks and unless i missed it no one wants to answer.

 

[homersapien 12,302]

On 5/6/2023 at 5:49 PM, GoAU said:

Yeah, because soldiers don’t have to think or be mature…

I thought you said you served?   If so, what kind of unit?   The stuff I did sure helped me grow up in a hurry.  

Sorry, I missed this.

I turned 18 and signed up with selective service - the draft - in March, 1969.  (This was at the height of the war in Viet Nam.)

I was actually indifferent to the possibility (actually likelihood) that if I was drafted I'd go straight to 'Nam.  At that point, I just assumed the war was justified and necessary.  (There that 18-year-old aspect coming into play.) No doubt I would have made a good soldier. I was an Eagle Scout, I enjoyed guns and I was starting football player at Shades Valley H.S. 

Fortunately though, my immediate personal plan and desire was to attend college and I actually started Auburn that summer, receiving a college draft deferment. That December my deferment expired but I got a high lottery number (300+).  Again - due to my age along with the associated ignorance and naivety -  I was indifferent about the lottery and was perfectly willing to be drafted. Some of my friends were not so lucky, including my best friend who still suffers from exposure to agent orange.

Over the next few years I became educated to the actually reality of that war via books on the subject such as "A Bright and Shinning Lie", and many, many more....

So by the time I was in my early 20's I realized what a totally ******-up mistake Viet Nam was for the country. I had (literally) "dodged a bullet" for not getting caught up in it like so many of my friends had.  It was a bad, bad war - not to say evil.  So as I got older, I came to fully realize just how very lucky I was to avoid it when I was 18.

(BTW, the observation that "teenagers make good soldiers" is certainly not original.  Hell, it's a meme.)

And no doubt the military helps you "grow up" fast.  I even recommended it to the kid who spent 5 years working for me and he joined the Navy.  He just graduated from college.

But if you get caught up in something like Viet Nam - which again, was a BAD war, you might still be suffering, mentally and/or physically.

 

 

 

Edited May 12, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 12,302]

5 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

they do not want everyone's guns just the military grade weapons. it is my understanding the bullets are special made to tumble and do more damage? are you for keeping bump stocks legal? i have asked on the bump stocks and unless i missed it no one wants to answer.

 

High velocity makes standard AR-15 rounds do a lot of damage. Far more than say, 9mm pistol rounds, for example.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2023/ar-15-damage-to-human-body/

 

[wdefromtx 3,712]

Just now, aubiefifty said:

they do not want everyone's guns just the military grade weapons. it is my understanding the bullets are special made to tumble and do more damage? are you for keeping bump stocks legal? i have asked on the bump stocks and unless i missed it no one wants to answer.

 

No I do not think bump stocks should be legal. I used to defend AR-15's, but I am tired of all the mass shootings. I am not defending them, but the left's argument does not pass muster if the intent is to save many lives. If they would just admit that they want to save about 1.5-2% (672 in 2022 mass shootings) of all annual gun deaths that are high profile and to hell with the remaining 47,000 deaths then maybe there would be some more serious talks. 

The right wing knows that in order to really make a difference you will need essentially full on ban similar to the UK where even Homer has to give up his snub nose and even more in Australia. 

[aubiefifty 18,439]

7 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

No I do not think bump stocks should be legal. I used to defend AR-15's, but I am tired of all the mass shootings. I am not defending them, but the left's argument does not pass muster if the intent is to save many lives. If they would just admit that they want to save about 1.5-2% (672 in 2022 mass shootings) of all annual gun deaths that are high profile and to hell with the remaining 47,000 deaths then maybe there would be some more serious talks. 

The right wing knows that in order to really make a difference you will need essentially full on ban similar to the UK where even Homer has to give up his snub nose and even more in Australia. 

biden has already said he was just after the assault rifles. if said anything different i have not seen it. what if your kids school is the next target? you would wish you had changed your mind if that happens. and trust me i am not being mean. not one thinks about stuff until it slaps them in the fac4e too often. this is why i lose it over rape and sexual assault. i know the damage it does. shame made my sister live with that crap for around forty years. and she was not lying i can tell you that. and people on here stoo low enough to make fun of rape and me when i mentioned my sister and apparently that is ok on here. i would not wish what my sister went through on my worst enemy. maybe it is subjective to who has dealt with what in life but it is shameful. not one  word was said. not one. and i just broke a posting law and will probably get time out but they say contact us and no one ever replies. but i have reds email addy in case it is not fair.

[wdefromtx 3,712]

12 minutes ago, homersapien said:

High velocity makes standard AR-15 rounds do a lot of damage. Far more than say, 9mm pistol rounds, for example.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2023/ar-15-damage-to-human-body/

 

If we are banning guns do we focus on ones that do massive damage but in numbers exponentially less than others or guns that do less damage but kill more overall? 

[aubiefifty 18,439]

Just now, wdefromtx said:

If we are banning guns do we focus on ones that do massive damage but in numbers exponentially less than others or guns that do less damage but kill more overall? 

a man is not going to wipe out a whole school of kids with a snubnose. the point is they want to give folks a chance to live through an attack. maybe there are other ways but the right keeps stonewalling on it and people are dying in record numbers.

[wdefromtx 3,712]

1 minute ago, aubiefifty said:

biden has already said he was just after the assault rifles. if said anything different i have not seen it. what if your kids school is the next target? you would wish you had changed your mind if that happens. and trust me i am not being mean. not one thinks about stuff until it slaps them in the fac4e too often. this is why i lose it over rape and sexual assault. i know the damage it does. shame made my sister live with that crap for around forty years. and she was not lying i can tell you that. and people on here stoo low enough to make fun of rape and me when i mentioned my sister and apparently that is ok on here. i would not wish what my sister went through on my worst enemy. maybe it is subjective to who has dealt with what in life but it is shameful. not one  word was said. not one. and i just broke a posting law and will probably get time out but they say contact us and no one ever replies. but i have reds email addy in case it is not fair.

Got it, Biden and the left only care about saving 600-700 lives a year which is something. Which is admirable if you mainly just want high profile shootings to go away. I mean I guess that will help make us look better on the surface to other countries. 

[GoAU 1,696]

28 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

they do not want everyone's guns just the military grade weapons. it is my understanding the bullets are special made to tumble and do more damage? are you for keeping bump stocks legal? i have asked on the bump stocks and unless i missed it no one wants to answer.

 

That’s exactly the problem with gun control - you're a huge supporter, but are basing beliefs on incorrect assumptions.  The AR-15 uses a relatively weak .223 /5.56mm round compared to an almost all hunting cartridges.   All bullets will either tumble or expand on impact. To be honest, a hollow point or soft nose round would do quite a bit more damage against a soft / unarmored target.  
 

The rest of the nuances of “military grade” are likely cosmetic or immaterial l, unless you are talking about banning all semiautomatic rifles.  

[aubiefifty 18,439]

2 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

If we are banning guns do we focus on ones that do massive damage but in numbers exponentially less than others or guns that do less damage but kill more overall? 

ok. what is your side doing then wde? nothing. you guys do not understand the nra and other groups have poured tons of money into pro gun pols and nothing is getting done. nothing. and kids are dying while reading dick and jane.

see dick.

see dick run.

see dick screaming in terror as his friend gets her face blown off.

see jane.

jane is not running. jane is dead because we are giving guns to any fookin idiot that wants one. jane never hurt a soul in her life.

 

 

[aubiefifty 18,439]

1 minute ago, GoAU said:

That’s exactly the problem with gun control - you're a huge supporter, but are basing beliefs on incorrect assumptions.  The AR-15 uses a relatively weak .223 /5.56mm round compared to an almost all hunting cartridges.   All bullets will either tumble or expand on impact. To be honest, a hollow point or soft nose round would do quite a bit more damage against a soft / unarmored target.  
 

The rest of the nuances of “military grade” are likely cosmetic or immaterial l, unless you are talking about banning all semiautomatic rifles.  

you keep ignoring my question. do you own a bump stock?

[aubiefifty 18,439]

2 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Got it, Biden and the left only care about saving 600-700 lives a year which is something. Which is admirable if you mainly just want high profile shootings to go away. I mean I guess that will help make us look better on the surface to other countries. 

the left wants people to be safe when they go to school,church,movies, or shopping. THAT is what the left wants. you can change it around all you want. look how much violence went down when ronnie outlawed assault weapons. then go look up how much violence went up after they were made legal again. it is simple math.