School shooting in California

[Cajun 11,760]

 

Quote

No it will not. If taking away guns stops one mass shooting. It is worth it. 

Worked for Hitler.

(I keed, I keed)

Edited November 17, 2019 by Cajun

[Armybrat 40,942]

Taking guns away won’t stop diddly, except freedom & the Bill of Rights.

Prohibition did wonders for alcoholism.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,979]

14 hours ago, austingirl said:

Generally speaking, federal law does not currently require private-party sellers to ask for ID or perform background checks as long as the gun isn't crossing state lines and isn't one of the gun types regulated by the National Firearms Act. Several states do have background check requirements beyond what the feds require, though, and I guess it's possible for private sellers to do their own background checks as a matter of personal policy.

There isn't a way for private sellers to perform a background check without going through an FFL, which costs like 20 or 30 bucks or so, plus the extra time required (bigger deal in rural areas). Lots of gun owners have asked for one. A lot of people will ask to make a copy of or take a photo of an ID, thinking criminals won't want to do that.

[XYZ 2,154]

Time to rewrite the second amendment?

[DDD Dad 14,365]

Time to rewrite the second amendment?

It already got rewritten by the Burger court from a collective right to a personal one.

[markstanco 12,640]

11 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

No it will not. If taking away guns stops one mass shooting. It is worth it. 

Again, taking away my 7 mag, 223, 12 ga., and pistols wont stop these shootings. It's not the tool, it's the user. Taking away my guns will only be taking away my guns. A mentally ill person will find a way to get attention and do what they plan on doing.  

 

But yes, take my guns away if it stops just one killing? No it wont. Taking MY guns away will solve nothing. They wont be killing anybody. 

[markstanco 12,640]

My 11 year old and I went out to target shoot at the lease today. We took the 22lr with a can and shot the 22-250 from 400 yards at an AR500 16 inch target. We had his Remington 1187 20, but didnt shoot it.

No people were killed.

[Armybrat 40,942]

3 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

It already got rewritten by the Burger court from a collective right to a personal one.

It has always been an individual right just like the rest of the original amendments, particularly about the “militia”. Founding Fathers intended it that way no matter how later talking heads have claimed.

[staboner 4,988]

don't touch my guns versus take away guns. same pointless argument. you fuckers would rather come on this message board posting inane stupidity to make yourselves feel marginally better instead even bothering one ounce of adulting. 

America is really fucking broken and a good lot of you are goddamn retards

[DDD Dad 14,365]

It has always been an individual right just like the rest of the original amendments, particularly about the “militia”. Founding Fathers intended it that way no matter how later talking heads have claimed.

I know you were around when they drafted it but you’re not right on this.

[Bevo 13,609]

2 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

I know you were around when they drafted it but you’re not right on this.

Wrong. Both record and lore have it that James Madison once gave armybrat a high five and called him his lege. Surly you have heard about Armybrat, the Testicles of Trenton.

[Pam Cummings 9,689]

6 hours ago, staboner said:

don't touch my guns versus take away guns. same pointless argument. you fuckers would rather come on this message board posting inane stupidity to make yourselves feel marginally better instead even bothering one ounce of adulting. 

America is really fucking broken and a good lot of you are goddamn retards

The only people who are retards are people who read news stories about kids being killed at school and think "those libruls are gonna use this to try to take away mah gunz!!"

[immortal13 4,059]

3 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

I know you were around when they drafted it but you’re not right on this.

He consulted on it

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

The mental gymnastics of trying to claim the second amendment isn’t an individual right are pretty astonishing.  Almost as logical is that the founders intended the bill of rights to prevent states from banning abortion.  

[DDD Dad 14,365]

The mental gymnastics of trying to claim the second amendment isn’t an individual right are pretty astonishing.  Almost as logical is that the founders intended the bill of rights to prevent states from banning abortion.  

This is unintentionally ironic and hilarious.

[MNLonghornFUKM 8,835]

Are we just combining the football watch party shooting with the school shooting one? Happened in the same state a few days apart so itd save on bandwidth.



Thoughts and prayers

[Neonmoon 38,130]

15 hours ago, markstanco said:

It's not the tool, it's the user.

Oh is it?

Hey everyone, guess what else just became legal to have because it's not the tool, it's the user!!!!

Tanks, Grenade Launchers, Heroin, Saren Gas. 

Party!!!

[Armybrat 40,942]

That’s the usual worthless retort we've heard  for decades.

Please try to bring something cogent to the table.

[Brisketexan 105,483]

That’s the usual worthless retort we've heard  for decades.
Please try to bring something cogent to the table.

Fair.

You know what would really, really, really help?

If gun owners and the gun lobby brought something meaningful to the table.

We’re killing ourselves slowly with our “resist and any all change and be the movement of ‘no’” approach. This is how we eventually end up with an actual gun ban.

[workswithseed 2,124]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Fair.

You know what would really, really, really help?

If gun owners and the gun lobby brought something meaningful to the table.

We’re killing ourselves slowly with our “resist and any all change and be the movement of ‘no’” approach. This is how we eventually end up with an actual gun ban.

I mean there's two ways to getting point b. One the scenic route, the other the highway.

[markstanco 12,640]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Oh is it?

Hey everyone, guess what else just became legal to have because it's not the tool, it's the user!!!!

Tanks, Grenade Launchers, Heroin, Saren Gas. 

Party!!!

pencils misspell words

[Armybrat 40,942]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Fair.

You know what would really, really, really help?

If gun owners and the gun lobby brought something meaningful to the table.

We’re killing ourselves slowly with our “resist and any all change and be the movement of ‘no’” approach. This is how we eventually end up with an actual gun ban.

Why? We already have to have a government permit to exercise our fundamental rights, and some states won’t even do that for their law-abiding citizens.

and yes, we have an extensive background check system run by the same government you seem to have so much faith in - a flawed & sometimes incompetent system that has allowed most of these shooters to squeeze through the cracks to do their evil work.

why don’t the politicians work on that as a starter instead of the useless rhetoric from empty suits like Beto?

the gun advocates have already been subjected to excessive restrictions since the 1930s, plus the industry is among the most highly regulated and strictly monotored.

 

[Brisketexan 105,483]

Just now, Armybrat said:

and yes, we have an extensive background check system run by the same government you seem to have so much faith in - a flawed & sometimes incompetent system that has allowed most of these shooters to squeeze through the cracks to do their evil work.

why don’t the politicians work on that as a starter instead of the useless rhetoric from empty suits like Beto?

Glad you brought that up.

Quote

Federal law requires licensed firearms dealers to maintain records of gun sales indefinitely, including information about the firearm(s) being purchased, as well as the purchaser. Federal law prohibits the federal government from collecting firearm sales records in a central repository, however. 

In other words, the thing that you champion....has seen the gun lobby successfully work to make it rather impotent.  Come on, man.  Any measure, no matter how small, is either completely shot down or rendered mostly impotent by the gun lobby.

Oh, and we don't need a gov't permit, at all, to "exercise our fundamental right" to keep and bear arms.  I have a crapload of guns, and I don't have a single "permit" for any of them, or for me.  So, no, that's not a thing either.  Keep trying.

OR, you know, we gun owners could say "yes, gun violence is an issue in this country, and because we understand firearms and the responsibility of gun ownership, we are uniquely situated to make a positive contribution to addressing the issue."  That would be nice.

[fattyflattie 4,639]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

OR, you know, we gun owners could say "yes, gun violence is an issue in this country, and because we understand firearms and the responsibility of gun ownership, we are uniquely situated to make a positive contribution to addressing the issue."  That would be nice.

I’m all for stricter (way stricter, honestly) background checks, psych evals, etc. Also, guns need to be FFL transfer anytime they change hands.     

So what is the left bringing to the table?  Going to take some back and forth from everyone, no? 

[Pam Cummings 9,689]

1 hour ago, Armybrat said:

That’s the usual worthless retort we've heard  for decades.

Please try to bring something cogent to the table.

Not as worthless as the "people drive drunk, should we ban cars?!?!" take.

[Brisketexan 105,483]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I’m all for stricter (way stricter, honestly) background checks, psych evals, etc. Also, guns need to be FFL transfer anytime they change hands.     

So what is the left bringing to the table?  Going to take some back and forth from everyone, no? 

Of course it is.  I generally like the approach in your first sentence.  Can you imagine the power and credibility that would have coming from a gun owners advocacy group?

Also, I think you'd be surprised (actually, you wouldn't -- you have demonstrated a reasonable perspective about how others think) at how well that would be received by most people on "the left."

Dude, the "left" can't even get the concept of a red flag law off the ground.  They've suggested and tried a lot of things (some good ideas, some not), but none of them even clear the launch pad.

[fattyflattie 4,639]

I forgot about that. While I don’t agree with the red flag laws in theory, they seemed to be effective when they buckled down a few months ago after whatever shooting that was.  Iirc they nailed 3-4 people within a week that likely saved lives.  Add that to the list of things I’m ok with, if executed properly, of course. 

[Armybrat 40,942]

I am fine with the checks at the initial sale with the FFL dealers... if they are accurate. Many times they are not, just like the TSA “no-fly” list. Clean up their bureaucratic procedures first.

But it seems the judicial system has no interest in prosecuting those criminals who attempt to lie their way through the federal paperwork & check system. It reminds me of the infamous Chicago case of a guy (with a clean record) who did scores of straw purchases at FFL gun shops and sold them to known criminals. The prosecutors allowed him to walk with probation on his plea deal. That, in a city with areas that seems to be more dangerous than many in the world.
And of the tens of thousands who do get caught just making false statements on the 4473 form, almost none are ever charged, much less convicted.

A registration data repository? You know exactly why that is a no-go with owners and the gun lobby. That is nothing but a means to eventual confiscation, as has been repeated numerous times. The loud denials of the proponents of such  a system will never convince me otherwise. Beto kinda blew that nonsense up.

Red flag laws? Yes, they can work in many cases if exercised with due process, but we have already seen them abused in some states by vindictive haters, incompetents, and ignorant do-gooders. Not to mention the financial cost involved for those who are victimized by the abused process. I thought officers of the court would be interested in extreme diligence in due process.
The case of the retired cop/soldier who lost his school crosswalk guard job and had his guns seized without due process in Massachusetts recently - just because a waitress overheard a part of a conversation, took it out of context and reported it to the police - comes to mind. The the case of the Baptist church shooting near San Antonio two years ago - how that obvious red flag situation was totally fucked up.

But no, let’s screw over the law-abiding citizens fundamental rights and allow the real dirtbags off or just slap them on their wrists.

Just color me skeptical when it comes to the government and its controlling bureaucrats.

[Armybrat 40,942]

31 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

Not as worthless as the "people drive drunk, should we ban cars?!?!" take.

To you maybe, not me.

[Brisketexan 105,483]

Just now, Armybrat said:

I am fine with the checks at the initial sale with the FFL dealers... if they are accurate. Many times they are not, just like the TSA “no-fly” list. Clean up their bureaucratic procedures first.

But it seems the judicial system has no interest in prosecuting those criminals who attempt to lie their way through the federal paperwork & check system. It reminds me of the infamous Chicago case of a guy (with a clean record) who did scores of straw purchases at FFL gun shops and sold them to known criminals. The prosecutors allowed him to walk with probation on his plea deal. That, in a city with areas that seems to be more dangerous than many in the world.
And of the tens of thousands who do get caught just making false statements on the 4473 form, almost none are ever charged, much less convicted.

A registration data repository? You know exactly why that is a no-go with owners and the gun lobby. That is nothing but a means to eventual confiscation, as has been repeated numerous times. The loud denials of the proponents of such  a system will never convince me otherwise. Beto kinda blew that nonsense up.

Red flag laws? Yes, they can work in many cases if exercised with due process, but we have already seen them abused in some states by vindictive haters, incompetents, and ignorant do-gooders. Not to mention the financial cost involved for those who are victimized by the abused process. I thought officers of the court would be interested in extreme diligence in due process.
The case of the retired cop/soldier who lost his school crosswalk guard job and had his guns seized without due process in Massachusetts recently - just because a waitress overheard a part of a conversation, took it out of context and reported it to the police - comes to mind. The the case of the Baptist church shooting near San Antonio two years ago - how that obvious red flag situation was totally fucked up.

But no, let’s screw over the law-abiding citizens fundamental rights and allow the real dirtbags off or just slap them on their wrists.

Just color me skeptical when it comes to the government and its controlling bureaucrats.

Excellent.

You've cited me a handful of examples of how the legal system failed to do its job with respect to gun rights and gun safety.

I can point you to a significant body count of examples where our current approach has helped lead to dead kids.  So, again, I suggest that gun owners take the lead on this. If we continue this path, the choice will be taken out of our hands entirely.  Do you want to know how you make Beto's position the dominant political position?  Keep doing what we're doing, and letting every mom in America get breaking news alert after breaking news alert of school shootings.

[Armybrat 40,942]

15 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I forgot about that. While I don’t agree with the red flag laws in theory, they seemed to be effective when they buckled down a few months ago after whatever shooting that was.  Iirc they nailed 3-4 people within a week that likely saved lives.  Add that to the list of things I’m ok with, if executed properly,.....

If executed properly is the key.

27 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Of course it is.  I generally like the approach in your first sentence.  Can you imagine the power and credibility that would have coming from a gun owners advocacy group?

Also, I think you'd be surprised (actually, you wouldn't -- you have demonstrated a reasonable perspective about how others think) at how well that would be received by most people on "the left."

Dude, the "left" can't even get the concept of a red flag law off the ground.  They've suggested and tried a lot of things (some good ideas, some not), but none of them even clear the launch pad.

That’s because the government has repeatedly shown its incompetence to enforce so many laws. You know that too

[Armybrat 40,942]

Brisket, gun owners have taken the lead on some aspects of attempting to help through safety & education, but the opposition just vilifies them for demanding due process. 

[DDD Dad 14,365]

That’s because the government has repeatedly shown its incompetence to enforce so many laws. You know that too

This is a really lazy trope.

[Brisketexan 105,483]

11 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

Brisket, gun owners have taken the lead on some aspects of attempting to help through safety & education, but the opposition just vilifies them for demanding due process. 

Dude.  Come on.  "Safety and education?"  That's what you've got?

Back when I was an NRA member (yep, was a member for a long time), that's exactly what the organization did.  And it was helpful.  That is so far from the NRA's mission today that it's not even funny.

Come on.  Gun owner and gun advocacy groups are not taking ANY sort of leadership role in addressing gun violence.  I guarantee you, with about as close to 100% certainty as I've ever had, that this approach WILL lead to sharply diminished gun rights at some time in the future.  Again, if you wanted to follow a path to guarantee that the Beto-statement view becomes politically dominant and actually wins, we're following it perfectly right now.  Gun owners and advocacy groups are nothing but the party of "no" whenever any discussion of reducing gun violence comes up, and when you couple that with offering zero meaningful alternatives, that gets you shoved away from the table, as you are not a contributor of ideas.

[Armybrat 40,942]

No it isn’t, it is the same argument put forth by anti-death penalty advocates.

kinda weird... back in the 1960s & 1970s the “left” hated government & its intrusive bureaucracy, and now they seem to embrace it without question when it comes to healthcare & gun control.

[Armybrat 40,942]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Dude.  Come on.  "Safety and education?"  That's what you've got?

Back when I was an NRA member (yep, was a member for a long time), that's exactly what the organization did.  And it was helpful.  That is so far from the NRA's mission today that it's not even funny.

Come on.  Gun owner and gun advocacy groups are not taking ANY sort of leadership role in addressing gun violence.  I guarantee you, with about as close to 100% certainty as I've ever had, that this approach WILL lead to sharply diminished gun rights at some time in the future.  Again, if you wanted to follow a path to guarantee that the Beto-statement view becomes politically dominant and actually wins, we're following it perfectly right now.  Gun owners and advocacy groups are nothing but the party of "no" whenever any discussion of reducing gun violence comes up, and when you couple that with offering zero meaningful alternatives, that gets you shoved away from the table, as you are not a contributor of ideas.

I have offered my views of helpful steps multiple times in these forums. Why do I have to keep repeating them if you don’t listen?

What are YOU doing to insure constitutional due process is preserved?

[NeverMarryAStripper 21,999]

If nothing is done, eventually we will get to a point where a serious effort at constitutional change is made.  That is not a can of worms I want to see opened with the group of incompetents that get elected these days.

[Brisketexan 105,483]

40 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

If nothing is done, eventually we will get to a point where a serious effort at constitutional change is made.  That is not a can of worms I want to see opened with the group of incompetents that get elected these days.

This.

Insist that nothing is wrong, and nothing can or should be done.....and eventually, some serious shit will get done.  And you'll have no say in it, and folks who don't know shit WILL.

[fattyflattie 4,639]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

This.

Insist that nothing is wrong, and nothing can or should be done.....and eventually, some serious shit will get done.  And you'll have no say in it, and folks who don't know shit WILL.

Meh. I think you’ll see a lot more of what the commissioner of Montgomery county is proposing (link won’t fucking imbed). Google Montgomery county gun sanctuary.
 

Any politician outside of the bluest areas won’t touch this.  There’s too many votes on both sides that believe they have the right to own a firearm to protect their home and family.  Beto did a disservice to the anti-gun advocates. Starts off with I won’t take your guns during senate run, moves to I’m taking your AR during primary campaign, finishes with there is no need for semiautomatics firearms.   Going from his second position to his last position involved way more everyday people who have a 9mm in the bedside table than it did “gun nuts”.  He set his movement back imo, and burned the goodwill he had gained in TX imo.  
 

 

[Pam Cummings 9,689]

15 hours ago, Armybrat said:

To you maybe, not me.

Yeah well when everyone drives a gun to work or when guns are more heavily regulated than cars maybe that shit will make sense. Until then, it's an idiotic take.

Edited November 19, 2019 by Pam Cummings

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,979]

Currently guns are more regulated than cars in many if not most places. People like to say something along the lines of if you need a license and registration to drive a car you should need a license and registration to have a gun. But what they are missing is that you don't need any of that to drive a truck around on your ranch as long as it is never driven on public roads. You need a license to drive a car in public, and you usually need a license to carry a gun in public. Except your license to carry a gun may not be applicable if you cross state lines. And some places require a license and registration just to own one. It is a bad analogy, really.

I am in favor of universal background checks on all transfers, but the Democrats don't know what they are doing (the bill the House passed it terrible) and Republicans aren't interested in doing anything either. Former senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma, while generally a terrible legislature, actually had a decent proposal that would be pretty workable. Basically, a prospective gun buyer would call or log into an online portal and enter their information. If they passed the NICS background check, they would get a code that they could present to the seller that would be good for 30 days. The seller could then call the NICS hotline and give the code as well as the name off of the buyer's ID and confirm that the buyer was eligible to purchase the gun. No inconvenience of having to drive to an FFL and pay money for a transfer and no real potential for abuse by people trying to pry into someone else's private life. It could be easily done even if you wanted to let your buddy borrow a gun for a hunting trip so he could see if he likes it enough to buy one. It just made sense, especially compared to how we do things now. But only like two other senators supported it. The Pubs didn't like it because gun control, and the Dems didn't like it because it didn't leave enough of a trail of paperwork (of course that could easily be fixed by providing forms for sellers to fill out and keep). Neither side is really interested in solving the problem in a way that works. The same thing happens often with red flag law proposals. It's either no due process or nothing at all. Nobody in Washington is actually serious about trying to find solutions that will help reduce gun violence without trampling all over somebody else's rights. To be fair, this isn't just a problem with gun rights, it's a problem with every issue that folks disagree with in our government right now. 

As gun owners, we need to come to the table with workable proposals that will help reduce this crap without unduly burdening us. If the gun control advocates aren't willing to look at things from another prospective and refuse, then the blood is on their hands. As it is right now, blood is on everybody's hands.

[Asithappens 974]

 We're never going to grow the balls necessary to fix this gun problem. 

The 2nd A needs to be changed. We don't have "well organized militias" anymore. We don't need hundreds of millions of guns, mostly hand guns. 

 

[Asithappens 974]

17 hours ago, Armybrat said:

No it isn’t, it is the same argument put forth by anti-death penalty advocates.

kinda weird... back in the 1960s & 1970s the “left” hated government & its intrusive bureaucracy, and now they seem to embrace it without question when it comes to healthcare & gun control.

Wtf are you blabbering about? 

Keep your disingenuous "comparing" to yourself. 

You're part of the problem.

[workswithseed 2,124]

18 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

 We're never going to grow the balls necessary to fix this gun problem. 

The 2nd A needs to be changed. We don't have "well organized militias" anymore. We don't need hundreds of millions of guns, mostly hand guns. 

 

Are you saying we don't need handguns?

[Neonmoon 38,130]

20 hours ago, markstanco said:

pencils misspell words

You just compared misspelled words to dead kids. Congratulations 

[Neonmoon 38,130]

21 hours ago, Armybrat said:

That’s the usual worthless retort we've heard  for decades.

Please try to bring something cogent to the table.

There is no clear and logical argument that will convince you that guns are the problem because gun owners are not basing their decisions on logic. You have an emotional attachment to your gun. No logical argument exists to overcome this. I can list all kind of facts about US gun deaths compared to other countries without guns, I can even provide links  

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/08/05/743579605/how-the-u-s-compares-to-other-countries-in-deaths-from-gun-violence

or we could talk about all the crimes you have not stopped in your lifetime with your gun, or all the mass shootings police officers have not stopped with their guns. But none of that matters, because you are not basing your decision to support the retention of guns on facts. 
 

So I’m glad you like guns and how they make you feel. Good for you. 

[workswithseed 2,124]

3 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

There is no clear and logical argument that will convince you that guns are the problem because gun owners are not basing their decisions on logic. You have an emotional attachment to your gun. No logical argument exists to overcome this. I can list all kind of facts about US gun deaths compared to other countries without guns, I can even provide links  

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/08/05/743579605/how-the-u-s-compares-to-other-countries-in-deaths-from-gun-violence

or we could talk about all the crimes you have not stopped in your lifetime with your gun, or all the mass shootings police officers have not stopped with their guns. But none of that matters, because you are not basing your decision to support the retention of guns on facts. 
 

So I’m glad you like guns and how they make you feel. Good for you. 

So we should get rid of the military? It's the only reason why some gun owners want to keep them. 

Again, is it okay to dissarm America if no one else does?

[Neonmoon 38,130]

3 hours ago, workswithseed said:

So we should get rid of the military? It's the only reason why some gun owners want to keep them. 

Again, is it okay to dissarm America if no one else does?

People who want to remain armed in case of government tyranny do not live in reality. This isn’t 1845. I’ve never had to take up arms against tyranny and no one else has in the history of the United States. Even if that preposterous reality came to pass in their upside world, what do they think they’re going to accomplish with their guns? Fight back the US military for quartering soldiers in their homes? Why would the military need to quarter soldiers? It’s already illegal. So who determines when tyranny happens? The nutcase with an arsenal in the mountains who won’t pay his property taxes? Not to mention the preposterous notion that their guns would do jack shit against the military. And if someone semi-intelligent brings up the Afghanistan rebuke of Russian invasion, I will gladly point out the CIA supply line they will not have. The Red Dawn fantasy that gun owners all tell themselves to justify their gun ownership is juvenile and sad. 

 

[Sbbruin 21,904]

1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

People who want to remain armed in case of government tyranny do not live in reality.

[NeverMarryAStripper 21,999]

I wish all the counties that are declaring themselves gun sanctuaries would declare themselves civil asset forfeiture sanctuaries instead.  I guess love of the Constitution only extends so far when it starts affecting the bottom line.