A man who arrived at the scene of the Allen, Texas, mass shooting said he found a girl with 'no face' and a mother who died protecting her son from bullets

[I_M4_AU 8,943]

Just now, aubiefifty said:

then why do you still do it?

In what why?

[Leftfield 3,378]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Do you really look down on people that way?  I would guess it is hyperbole, but one never knows.  I just got a new driver’s license and it is good for 5 years and I got it on line.  I’m 73 and they have no idea if I am capable of driving a car at my age much less 5 years from now.

The government doesn’t want to spend time monitoring every person as to their mental state to drive, much less own a gun.  Not sure where this uproar will lead, but it won’t be banning Assault Weapons.  JMO of course.

Of course it's hyperbole. The point stands. There are a large number of irresponsible people out there that have no business owning a gun, yet they can because much of society has been fooled into believing "a well regulated militia" means Bubber can own an arsenal to keep that pesky government from taking the guns that he bought to by-God protect himself from the government. You were in the military. Are you going to tell me there weren't guys that you just shook your head at because they didn't know which end was up? I've heard stories from pretty much all the members of my family that were in the military about people like that, and even after all that weapons training they were worried about what they would be like after their service ended.

Your point about drivers licenses was actually covered in a thread a good ways back. I believe it's too easy to get a drivers license in this country to begin with. Testing should be more strenuous. It's become so easy that people basically see it as a right. I also believe testing should be repeated at certain intervals, particularly as we age. Not sure what age the interval should begin to tighten, but probably around 65 or so. I can tell you that my grandfather was terrifying when he reached his late 70's. Last time I rode with him I was 14, and he blew through three red lights. On the other hand, my dad is about to be 88, and aside from tailgating a bit more than I'd like, he does just fine. I do expect that will change any time now, though. Overall, there is not an epidemic of older drivers causing mass carnage from car wrecks, so not sure this is something we need to divert a ton of attention to.

You seem confident that all this will not lead to a ban on assault weapons. You may certainly be right, but it may also be that, without compromises from gun rights advocates, you find that the public reaches a critical mass on this and swings farther away than you expect.

Edited May 7, 2023 by Leftfield

[I_M4_AU 8,943]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

You were in the military

Actually, I never was in the military, however, I have experienced people that didn’t know their a$$ from a whole in the ground as the saying goes.

The reason for owning a gun has changed like everything else in this modern world.  I didn’t own firearms while we had kids at home. It was just a personal choice.  I do have a real passion for keeping rights bestowed upon us by the Constitution.  If you give up rights, you very seldom get them back.  The assault weapons ban in 1994 was unusual as it expired in 2004 and Congress voted on the expiration.

I believe the assault weapons ban was a catalyst for a lot of people getting a fire arm.  Just the threat of not being able to have one has driven a lot of sales.  Whether that is logical or not is up for debate.  That was 20 years ago and after the Columbine school shooting in 1999.

Since then the gun manufactures have played on threats of banning firearms especially the ARs.  During the summer of discontent (2020) gun sales picked up again as people could see on the news broadcasts things were getting uncomfortable.

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

It's become so easy that people basically see it as a right.

Speaking of driver’s licenses; it is easy and people do believe it is a right.  So much so if people’s licenses are suspended a lot of people will drive anyway.

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

You seem confident that all this will not lead to a ban on assault weapons. You may certainly be right, but it may also be that, without compromises from gun rights advocates, you find that the public reaches a critical mass on this and swings farther away than you expect.

Yes, I am confident at this point, it can always change. I’m not sure what compromise would look like.  Maybe some unenforceable law to appease the left, I don’t know.  I mentioned in my statement about the driver’s license that the government is really not interested in keeping up with a ton of people, it just easier to accept the accidents related to age, let the insurance company raise the cost to a point it becomes unrealistic to drive and/or an accident that will require a person to give up his/her driving privileges. 

Now we have this shooter in the Texas mall that was in the military on 2008:

The man who shot multiple people at an Allen, Texas mall on Saturday, killing at least eight, served with the U.S. Army in 2008 and “was removed due to mental health concerns,” according to an FBI bulletin reviewed by Rolling Stone. 

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/allen-texas-mass-shooter-motivated-by-white-supremacist-beliefs-feds-1234731085/#recipient_hashed=60bb1957093009168f83876597f7c9629d1ff513bbb7426963dd1f18c72fbf70&recipient_salt=ce5be0e6ddaad773f337b3bdbd8fd95fb46b3415f510f1ed9ac08bd2ef22beb5

So, here we have a 33 year old that was *removed due to mental health concerns* and yet he was able to purchase a gun.  Note:  he was 18 when he was removed due to mental health concerns, so he probably didn’t have any guns at that point.  As always, this information has fallen through the cracks because no one is responsible for keeping those records and passing those records on to where they need to go.  I’m sure he just lied on his application to get that gun.

We are not serious about a lot of requirements in this country.  If the ban is enacted only people like the above dirt bag will have those guns.

[Leftfield 3,378]

35 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The reason for owning a gun has changed like everything else in this modern world.  I didn’t own firearms while we had kids at home. It was just a personal choice.  I do have a real passion for keeping rights bestowed upon us by the Constitution.  If you give up rights, you very seldom get them back.  The assault weapons ban in 1994 was unusual as it expired in 2004 and Congress voted on the expiration.

Sure, I understand wanting to protect rights. Truth be told, I don't really have a desire to see the 2nd Amendment repealed (though it could use some rewording), but it's getting to the point that I'm not sure there will be an alternative because so few seem willing to give any ground.  I am honestly baffled by the number of people that are vehement about assault weapons being untouchable - that simply makes no sense to me, but this is what the NRA, among others, has been able to convince many in society must be the case, lest the government keep going and take all guns. That fear is what is preventing compromise. 

44 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I believe the assault weapons ban was a catalyst for a lot of people getting a fire arm.  Just the threat of not being able to have one has driven a lot of sales.  Whether that is logical or not is up for debate.  That was 20 years ago and after the Columbine school shooting in 1999.

Since then the gun manufactures have played on threats of banning firearms especially the ARs.  During the summer of discontent (2020) gun sales picked up again as people could see on the news broadcasts things were getting uncomfortable.

Yeah, this is the weird reality of mass shootings - gun sales actually increase because there will inevitably be talk of banning something. With the increase in the number of mass shootings, the gun companies are loving the bottom line. The problem is that even if we do ban assault weapons, so many are in the system now because of this very fear that it will take a long time to get rid of them. I would actually be very curious as to the breakdown of who buys most of these guns during the surges. Is it mainly new buyers, or existing owners that are adding to their numbers while they think they can. It's Sunday night - I'm too lazy to look it up right now.

51 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Now we have this shooter in the Texas mall that was in the military on 2008:

The man who shot multiple people at an Allen, Texas mall on Saturday, killing at least eight, served with the U.S. Army in 2008 and “was removed due to mental health concerns,” according to an FBI bulletin reviewed by Rolling Stone. 

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/allen-texas-mass-shooter-motivated-by-white-supremacist-beliefs-feds-1234731085/#recipient_hashed=60bb1957093009168f83876597f7c9629d1ff513bbb7426963dd1f18c72fbf70&recipient_salt=ce5be0e6ddaad773f337b3bdbd8fd95fb46b3415f510f1ed9ac08bd2ef22beb5

So, here we have a 33 year old that was *removed due to mental health concerns* and yet he was able to purchase a gun.  Note:  he was 18 when he was removed due to mental health concerns, so he probably didn’t have any guns at that point.  As always, this information has fallen through the cracks because no one is responsible for keeping those records and passing those records on to where they need to go.  I’m sure he just lied on his application to get that gun.

We are not serious about a lot of requirements in this country.  If the ban is enacted only people like the above dirt bag will have those guns.

Certainly there is plenty of work to be done in regards to red flag laws and making sure those with mental health issues get the help they need. That gets into lots of complicated areas, though, including costs of medical services and health insurance, which is a can of worms we don't need to open here. However, do you see where your point is problematic? You say he likely lied in order to purchase the gun, but how could he have even purchased it if assault weapons were banned?

Had this man's record been updated to show he had been removed due to mental health concerns, it may have stopped him, but that was also 15 years ago. What are the protocols on that? Would that note have denied him the right to buy a gun in perpetuity? Had he already undergone mental health treatment and been cleared? There are a few unknowns here that we would need more information on.

 

 

[AUDynasty 631]

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Of course it's hyperbole. The point stands. There are a large number of irresponsible people out there that have no business owning a gun, yet they can because much of society has been fooled into believing "a well regulated militia" means Bubber can own an arsenal to keep that pesky government from taking the guns that he bought to by-God protect himself from the government. You were in the military. Are you going to tell me there weren't guys that you just shook your head at because they didn't know which end was up? I've heard stories from pretty much all the members of my family that were in the military about people like that, and even after all that weapons training they were worried about what they would be like after their service ended.

Your point about drivers licenses was actually covered in a thread a good ways back. I believe it's too easy to get a drivers license in this country to begin with. Testing should be more strenuous. It's become so easy that people basically see it as a right. I also believe testing should be repeated at certain intervals, particularly as we age. Not sure what age the interval should begin to tighten, but probably around 65 or so. I can tell you that my grandfather was terrifying when he reached his late 70's. Last time I rode with him I was 14, and he blew through three red lights. On the other hand, my dad is about to be 88, and aside from tailgating a bit more than I'd like, he does just fine. I do expect that will change any time now, though. Overall, there is not an epidemic of older drivers causing mass carnage from car wrecks, so not sure this is something we need to divert a ton of attention to.

You seem confident that all this will not lead to a ban on assault weapons. You may certainly be right, but it may also be that, without compromises from gun rights advocates, you find that the public reaches a critical mass on this and swings farther away than you expect.

You hit the nail on the head on this. You brought up a point I haven't considered -- the longer this goes on, the more likely guns will be done away with a younger generation being politicians some day. I'm 30, but I've seen a huge uptick in my age and younger age that we won't be putting up with this kind of acceptance of such behavior in this society. If we're not reaching a compromise anytime soon, then they'll have to accept a complete ban on guns someday. I believe this will happen.

[AUDynasty 631]

12 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

It has little to do with guns, that’s just the latest liberal attack on the Constitution.  Evil is the culprit and evil will be with us forever.

 

okay. Good to know you prioritize guns over people’s lives.

[Leftfield 3,378]

10 hours ago, AUDynasty said:

You hit the nail on the head on this. You brought up a point I haven't considered -- the longer this goes on, the more likely guns will be done away with a younger generation being politicians some day. I'm 30, but I've seen a huge uptick in my age and younger age that we won't be putting up with this kind of acceptance of such behavior in this society. If we're not reaching a compromise anytime soon, then they'll have to accept a complete ban on guns someday. I believe this will happen.

I would be surprised to see a total ban, but I do think there would be a push into larger caliber handguns, perhaps even all semi-automatics. Both sides often see dealing with the government as being "give an inch take a foot," but if one side refuses to compromise, once the other side gets the numbers that's what it becomes. 

Edited May 8, 2023 by Leftfield

[aubiefifty 18,259]

7 hours ago, AUDynasty said:

 

okay. Good to know you prioritize guns over people’s lives.

i have talked to hm about this and he does not care. i mentioned children. he does not care. in the end he wants his pea shooter that looks cool and shoots really fast..................

[I_M4_AU 8,943]

7 hours ago, AUDynasty said:

 

okay. Good to know you prioritize guns over people’s lives.

Yes, these guns get up and shoot themselves.  That’s the problem.  They don’t take a human to commit the act.  I prioritize the Constitution over weak minded zealots that would give away basic rights.

10 hours ago, AUDynasty said:

I'm 30, but I've seen a huge uptick in my age and younger age that we won't be putting up with this kind of acceptance of such behavior in this society. If we're not reaching a compromise anytime soon, then they'll have to accept a complete ban on guns someday. I believe this will happen.

I can see you and younger aged people giving away rights left and right until the state owns your life and be completely satisfied with life.  We have raised a herd of sheep.

[I_M4_AU 8,943]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

I would be surprised to see a total ban, but I do think there would be a push into larger caliber handguns, perhaps even all semi-automatics. Both sides often see dealing with the government as being "give an inch take a foot," but if one side refuses to compromise, once the other side gets the numbers that what it becomes. 

And there you have it.  The Constitution LIMITS the power of the government and you assume we have to *deal* with the government as if they have the power over the people.  The side that fights back is the side that is fighting for the Constitution.

[AUDynasty 631]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

I would be surprised to see a total ban, but I do think there would be a push into larger caliber handguns, perhaps even all semi-automatics. Both sides often see dealing with the government as being "give an inch take a foot," but if one side refuses to compromise, once the other side gets the numbers that's what it becomes. 

100 percent. If NRA came out and said that they're worried about the increase of mass shootings and made collaborations with the government and law enforcement on figuring out solutions going forward, that'd be something that we would be thrilled to see. That they care.

Yeah, the more I think of it, I agree with you. A ban on military-grade handguns and semi-automatics is more likely. I thought the article @arein0brought up in another thread made a lot of sense to me, which is why we won't entertain any of these suggestions penned by Frist. 

[AUDynasty 631]

13 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes, these guns get up and shoot themselves.  That’s the problem.  They don’t take a human to commit the act.  I prioritize the Constitution over weak minded zealots that would give away basic rights.

I can see you and younger aged people giving away rights left and right until the state owns your life and be completely satisfied with life.  We have raised a herd of sheep.

And we can't wait. And let's face it, we're going down this path is because of the older generations', like yours, intense obsession with guns over coming up with plans and solutions to support mental health and to eliminate unnecessary semi-automatics and handguns that made that little girl faceless.

You call us a herd of sheep, we call it that we're not putting with it anymore.

[I_M4_AU 8,943]

3 minutes ago, AUDynasty said:

And we can't wait. And let's face it, we're going down this path is because of the older generations', like yours, intense obsession with guns over coming up with plans and solutions to support mental health and to eliminate unnecessary semi-automatics and handguns that made that little girl faceless.

You call us a herd of sheep, we call it that we're not putting with it anymore.

This is somewhat backwards.  The older generation is not obsessed with guns more like obsessed with keeping rights.  If the government and your generation would realize the 2nd Amendment is part of our rights and stop trying to amend it and concentrate on solutions to support mental health and boost policing the problem would lessen.

Please advise which semi-automatics (I assume rifles) and handguns that are unnecessary according to you.  Guns are just the low hanging fruit, it’s what the public see as the problem that can easily fix the problem of evil people without thinking about what it might mean going forward.

I do have empathy for the victims even though some of my fans don’t believe I do.  It is sad the US is going through this phase of distrust and evil acting out.  The AR is their tool, take that tool away and they will find another tool to do the job.  It’s the evil that we have to work on.  

[Leftfield 3,378]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

And there you have it.  The Constitution LIMITS the power of the government and you assume we have to *deal* with the government as if they have the power over the people.  The side that fights back is the side that is fighting for the Constitution.

We are dealing with an interpretation of the Constitution. 

And there is a reason the government was set up with the ability to change the Constitution. Those who wrote it understood that times would change, and it would be necessary for those leading the country to be able to adapt to that change. 

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes, these guns get up and shoot themselves.  That’s the problem.  They don’t take a human to commit the act.  I prioritize the Constitution over weak minded zealots that would give away basic rights.

I can see you and younger aged people giving away rights left and right until the state owns your life and be completely satisfied with life.  We have raised a herd of sheep.

You keep sabotaging your own arguments when you paint everyone as being the extreme version of what you fear, meaning someone who wants to ban all guns, and throw in ad hominems.

There is a reason these mass shooters are increasingly using assault style weapons, and that is they're better at killing people. You can get rid of those weapons without getting rid of the right to bear arms. How many times has it been pointed out to you that there are already limits on the types of weapons a person can own? Why is considering extending that limit to assault weapons worthy of someone being called a sheep? Is it truly your fear that it would be the first step to a total ban? If it's the latter, and the gun lobby keeps holding this line, in time they'll almost guarantee it.

[CoffeeTiger 5,880]

[arein0 1,105]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

This is somewhat backwards.  The older generation is not obsessed with guns more like obsessed with keeping rights.  If the government and your generation would realize the 2nd Amendment is part of our rights and stop trying to amend it and concentrate on solutions to support mental health and boost policing the problem would lessen.

Wasn't it Reagan that completely defunded the mental health institutions? It's comical that his policies are coming around full circle and he is still viewed by many Conservatives as one of the best presidents.

[wdefromtx 3,611]

45 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

We are dealing with an interpretation of the Constitution. 

And there is a reason the government was set up with the ability to change the Constitution. Those who wrote it understood that times would change, and it would be necessary for those leading the country to be able to adapt to that change. 

You keep sabotaging your own arguments when you paint everyone as being the extreme version of what you fear, meaning someone who wants to ban all guns, and throw in ad hominems.

There is a reason these mass shooters are increasingly using assault style weapons, and that is they're better at killing people. You can get rid of those weapons without getting rid of the right to bear arms. How many times has it been pointed out to you that there are already limits on the types of weapons a person can own? Why is considering extending that limit to assault weapons worthy of someone being called a sheep? Is it truly your fear that it would be the first step to a total ban? If it's the latter, and the gun lobby keeps holding this line, in time they'll almost guarantee it.

Serious question. Let's say we enact a ban on AR guns and 10 years or whenever from now and we have mass shootings still like at Allen and it was a handgun or just a hunting rifle.....do then start banning other types? 

[I_M4_AU 8,943]

32 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

You keep sabotaging your own arguments when you paint everyone as being the extreme version of what you fear, meaning someone who wants to ban all guns, and throw in ad hominems.

This is the passage I was responding to:

And we can't wait. And let's face it, we're going down this path is because of the older generations', like yours, intense obsession with guns over coming up with plans and solutions to support mental health and to eliminate unnecessary semi-automatics and handguns that made that little girl faceless.

How would you interpret *eliminate unnecessary semi-automatic and handguns*?  I interpreted that as getting rid of semi-automatic rifles (not a lot of rifles/shotguns that are not semi-automatic) and all handguns.  I know @AUDynastyis just spouting off, but he has indicated his intentions with regard to his views of guns.

38 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

There is a reason these mass shooters are increasingly using assault style weapons, and that is they're better at killing people. You can get rid of those weapons without getting rid of the right to bear arms. How many times has it been pointed out to you that there are already limits on the types of weapons a person can own? Why is considering extending that limit to assault weapons worthy of someone being called a sheep? Is it truly your fear that it would be the first step to a total ban? If it's the latter, and the gun lobby keeps holding this line, in time they'll almost guarantee it.

Yes, you can ban assault style weapons and without ridding the population to bear arms, but that depends on how you define *assault weapons* doesn’t it?  How does the Democrats define *assault weapons*?  How will Congress define *assault weapons* when the ATF Director appointed by Biden is not a gun expert and can not define an *assault weapon*.  It’s not just getting rid of a gun, the devil is in the details and how it is written is important.  One would have to believe that Congress is smart enough to write a law that would not have unintended consequences that can be used to further restrict the 2nd Amendment.  Those will ultimately end up in the SCOTUS, but only after years of implementation.

I will remind you that an *assault weapon* can also be a pistol because that term does not exclude any type of weapon.  Any gun can be used in an assault.  Where does it end?  For a lawyer you seem way too trusting in government, hence the term sheep.  I have no doubt with time the younger generation will not respect the Constitution.

One more thing, AUDynasty blamed the older generation because of their obsession with guns.  Interesting enough:

Prior to the January 2023 Californian shootings, mass shooters were also getting younger overall. From 1980 to 1989, the median age of mass shooters was 39. Over the next two decades, it was 33. And from 2010 to 2019, it was 29.

Since 2020, the median age of mass shooters has come down to just 22 years old — mostly young men and boys who were born into or came of age in an increasingly divided America and carried out their attacks amid the disruption of a global pandemic.

https://www.newspressnow.com/typical-mass-shooters-are-in-their-20s-and-30s-suspects-in-californias-latest-killings-are/article_ff31349c-9c54-11ed-930b-7f846e1048f2.html

It seems AUDynasty’s generation is more obsessed with guns than my generation.  Maybe the younger generation should work on their own before restricting rights of others.

[I_M4_AU 8,943]

20 minutes ago, arein0 said:

Wasn't it Reagan that completely defunded the mental health institutions? It's comical that his policies are coming around full circle and he is still viewed by many Conservatives as one of the best presidents.

Every decision a president makes are not always a good thing.  George Washington owned slaves, does that diminish his legacy?  To some it does, but they are short sighted.

[arein0 1,105]

47 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Every decision a president makes are not always a good thing.  George Washington owned slaves, does that diminish his legacy?  To some it does, but they are short sighted.

No, it doesn't diminish Washington's legacy.

However to view Reagan as a great president is also very short sighted. You can trace a lot of the issues we are facing today all the way back to the policies he put in place and what the Conservatives have based their party around, such as trickle down economics, defunding government departments (Education, mental health institutions), lower regulations (see what is happening to the banks). All of his policies only made the rich richer.

[AUDynasty 631]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

This is the passage I was responding to:

And we can't wait. And let's face it, we're going down this path is because of the older generations', like yours, intense obsession with guns over coming up with plans and solutions to support mental health and to eliminate unnecessary semi-automatics and handguns that made that little girl faceless.

How would you interpret *eliminate unnecessary semi-automatic and handguns*?  I interpreted that as getting rid of semi-automatic rifles (not a lot of rifles/shotguns that are not semi-automatic) and all handguns.  I know @AUDynastyis just spouting off, but he has indicated his intentions with regard to his views of guns.

Yes, you can ban assault style weapons and without ridding the population to bear arms, but that depends on how you define *assault weapons* doesn’t it?  How does the Democrats define *assault weapons*?  How will Congress define *assault weapons* when the ATF Director appointed by Biden is not a gun expert and can not define an *assault weapon*.  It’s not just getting rid of a gun, the devil is in the details and how it is written is important.  One would have to believe that Congress is smart enough to write a law that would not have unintended consequences that can be used to further restrict the 2nd Amendment.  Those will ultimately end up in the SCOTUS, but only after years of implementation.

I will remind you that an *assault weapon* can also be a pistol because that term does not exclude any type of weapon.  Any gun can be used in an assault.  Where does it end?  For a lawyer you seem way too trusting in government, hence the term sheep.  I have no doubt with time the younger generation will not respect the Constitution.

One more thing, AUDynasty blamed the older generation because of their obsession with guns.  Interesting enough:

Prior to the January 2023 Californian shootings, mass shooters were also getting younger overall. From 1980 to 1989, the median age of mass shooters was 39. Over the next two decades, it was 33. And from 2010 to 2019, it was 29.

Since 2020, the median age of mass shooters has come down to just 22 years old — mostly young men and boys who were born into or came of age in an increasingly divided America and carried out their attacks amid the disruption of a global pandemic.

https://www.newspressnow.com/typical-mass-shooters-are-in-their-20s-and-30s-suspects-in-californias-latest-killings-are/article_ff31349c-9c54-11ed-930b-7f846e1048f2.html

It seems AUDynasty’s generation is more obsessed with guns than my generation.  Maybe the younger generation should work on their own before restricting rights of others.

If we’re quick to pass anti-trans bills, abortion ban bills, why is this any different? Nothing wrong with doing away with the most extreme guns to see how it goes. If it helps stop another mass shooting then it’s worth it. And besides, we’re quick to strip rights of women, trans, and other minority groups but so quick to protect the armed population. Okay sure.

You’re correct that the mass shooters have gotten younger and younger, however which age demographic is currently in the power? People who should have been retired a long time ago. Thoughts and prayers don’t work anymore, and that’s by design. Sharing well wishes and healing thoughts are just a crutch to avoid addressing the issue at hand when literally every country in the world have close to zero mass shootings and they all are quick to address when a mass shooting happens.

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

This is somewhat backwards.  The older generation is not obsessed with guns more like obsessed with keeping rights.  If the government and your generation would realize the 2nd Amendment is part of our rights and stop trying to amend it and concentrate on solutions to support mental health and boost policing the problem would lessen.

Please advise which semi-automatics (I assume rifles) and handguns that are unnecessary according to you.  Guns are just the low hanging fruit, it’s what the public see as the problem that can easily fix the problem of evil people without thinking about what it might mean going forward.

I do have empathy for the victims even though some of my fans don’t believe I do.  It is sad the US is going through this phase of distrust and evil acting out.  The AR is their tool, take that tool away and they will find another tool to do the job.  It’s the evil that we have to work on.  

I’m glad you and I agree on prioritizing mental health. However when you see stuff like this: 

Greg Abbott cuts 211 million dollars from mental health agency https://www.sacurrent.com/news/abbott-blames-mental-health-for-uvalde-shooting-after-cutting-211-million-from-mental-health-agency-29019967?media=AMP+HTML

And this:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7780/text — passed 220-205, with just one Republican voting for the bill. All entire nays were from Republicans.

It just doesn’t inspire confidence, you know what I mean? 👍

[I_M4_AU 8,943]

36 minutes ago, AUDynasty said:

If we’re quick to pass anti-trans bills, abortion ban bills, why is this any different?

The anti-trans bills are to prevent irreversible surgeries to minor children and they are limited to each particular state.  Recently Washington state has banned all *assault rifles*, so each state can do that if they want.  That ban in Washington will likely hit the SCOTUS.  The abortion bans are also a state by state issue as the overturning of Roe v Wade has prompted.

The difference is trying to ban AR’s nationally.

41 minutes ago, AUDynasty said:

You’re correct that the mass shooters have gotten younger and younger, however which age demographic is currently in the power?

The ones that want to ban *assault weapons*.  Biden has pitched that since he was elected.  He had the House and the Senate for 2 years and didn’t even bring it up.  He knew it wouldn’t pass or he is a coward, your choice.

 

47 minutes ago, AUDynasty said:

every country in the world have close to zero mass shootings and they all are quick to address when a mass shooting happens.

Every other country doesn’t have that pesky US Constitution to deal with.  Amend the Constitution if you think there is that big a following.

49 minutes ago, AUDynasty said:

Greg Abbott cuts 211 million dollars from mental health

That bill passed a month before Uvalde, bad timing for sure.

 

51 minutes ago, AUDynasty said:

passed 220-205, with just one Republican voting for the bill. All entire nays were from Republicans.

It passed.  Be thankful it didn’t come up for a vote in February of 2023.  I’m not sure what was in it that the Republicans didn’t like, but there must have been something.

[Leftfield 3,378]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes, you can ban assault style weapons and without ridding the population to bear arms, but that depends on how you define *assault weapons* doesn’t it?  How does the Democrats define *assault weapons*?  How will Congress define *assault weapons* when the ATF Director appointed by Biden is not a gun expert and can not define an *assault weapon*.  It’s not just getting rid of a gun, the devil is in the details and how it is written is important.  One would have to believe that Congress is smart enough to write a law that would not have unintended consequences that can be used to further restrict the 2nd Amendment.  Those will ultimately end up in the SCOTUS, but only after years of implementation.

I will remind you that an *assault weapon* can also be a pistol because that term does not exclude any type of weapon.  Any gun can be used in an assault.  Where does it end?  For a lawyer you seem way too trusting in government, hence the term sheep.  I have no doubt with time the younger generation will not respect the Constitution.

This is the dance-around that gun supporters always use to basically do nothing. Make it sound like the issue is so complicated that legislation is useless because it would be an unworkable mess. You know what is meant by an assault weapon. It's not a perfect name, but it gets the point across.

It seems to me it could be addressed by using a combination of characteristics. For example, to reduce the overall power of a weapon, mandate a limit on kinetic energy (muzzle velocity must decrease with the weight of the round). Higher power weapons can be legal, but above a certain threshold they cannot be semi-automatic, so as to keep hunting rifles legal. I'm certain there are many nuances involved, including types of ammo, but you get the gist. 

A few things with your last sentences. First, not sure where you got the impression I'm a lawyer - I'm an engineer. Second, for a person that parrots a ton of talking points, using the term sheep is rather ironic. Third, just because people disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean they don't respect the Constitution, nor completely trust the government. 

 

 

[Leftfield 3,378]

3 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Serious question. Let's say we enact a ban on AR guns and 10 years or whenever from now and we have mass shootings still like at Allen and it was a handgun or just a hunting rifle.....do then start banning other types? 

Would depend on the circumstances and the exact types of weapons used. I have no doubt mass shootings will continue if people can't get their hands on an AR-style, but what will they move to, and will it be anywhere close to as effective as ARs? As I pointed out in my post just above, I think looking at the power of the weapons is probably what needs to be considered most. It would be more difficult to use a hunting rifle in a mass shooting because of the reload capability. Semi-automatics may need to have a kinetic energy limit on them.

 

[I_M4_AU 8,943]

3 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

This is the dance-around that gun supporters always use to basically do nothing. Make it sound like the issue is so complicated that legislation is useless because it would be an unworkable mess. You know what is meant by an assault weapon. It's not a perfect name, but it gets the point across.

It seems to me it could be addressed by using a combination of characteristics. For example, to reduce the overall power of a weapon, mandate a limit on kinetic energy (muzzle velocity must decrease with the weight of the round). Higher power weapons can be legal, but above a certain threshold they cannot be semi-automatic, so as to keep hunting rifles legal. I'm certain there are many nuances involved, including types of ammo, but you get the gist. 

A few things with your last sentences. First, not sure where you got the impression I'm a lawyer - I'm an engineer. Second, for a person that parrots a ton of talking points, using the term sheep is rather ironic. Third, just because people disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean they don't respect the Constitution, nor completely trust the government. 

 

 

How long do you believe the negotiations would take to nail down these points of an Assault Rifle/Weapon?  A long time I would bet.  It may or may not be workable, but the logistics of collecting all the banned weapons would be a night mare.  If you don’t get them off the streets what are we arguing about?

Yeah, I get the gist.  Control.

One more thing, if the muzzle velocity is the issue, will the government exchange the existing AR-15’s with a higher muzzle velocity with the new and approved one?  How about the ammo?  Yeah, this is a simple issue, just get the AR-15s off the street.

I do not have high confidence things are going to work out.