Active shooter thread

[Dirk X West 772]

"not an active shooter situation" 

[RDCanecutter 26407]

Seems like bearing down hard on the well-regulated militia part of the 2nd Amendment would work wonders. I mean an actual military-level unit, not a pack of Michigan flea-bags off at deer camp.

Regulations to include physicals, psychological screenings, challenging training, hell, just having to be somewhere at a certain time and follow some rules, that'd be too much to bear for most of these schlubs.

I think back to the start of Basic Training (I was Xth Legion in Gaul, how bout y'all), there were all sorts of rowdy little tough guys that you'd expect to see in a Starbucks toting an AR. After a week or two of mild stress, those were the guys who were gone. No doubt some of them went home to legally-purchased armaments. What if they couldn't? "You did not meet militia requirements, you will not be needing weapons."

Don't like those rules? Stop being weak and crazy.

[American Swindle 102]

29 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

If the right cares so much about preserving investments, why have they shut down so many medical practices that provide abortion services? 

TRAP laws are an interesting example of government intervention in the free market (this being private abortion clinics not funded by tax dollars.) These laws are arbitrary and lead to burdensome regulations that hinder the cost of operations for private abortion providers.  Some posit that these arbitrary TRAP laws are political in nature and even claim that they are administered by the evangelical powers that be within the state.  

It's ironic in a way.  You have the Right agenda to make it hard for private abortion clinics to thrive in Texas, thus leading to more demand for Planned Parenthood which (irony again) is funded with tax dollars that the Right is against going toward abortion?!?!!

Make sense?  Hell nah. 

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by American Swindle

[WhatTheBuck 28776]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

The Second Amendment is the problem. It should be repealed.

Oh well.

I disagree. It should be enforced. "Well regulated militia" doesn't mean that every limp dick dipshit with a Rambo fantasy should be allowed to own a stockpile of military grade weaponry. 

[HRSchenker 2268]

1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

Is it me, or do none of these mass shooters seem like members of a "well regulated Militia"?

 

The prefatory clause doesn't limit "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". All it does is state a purpose. Well regulated refers to being in good working order, armed for the common defense. It doesn't mean government intervention. How much sense does that make? The second amendment was supposed to be a guarantee to the American people that they would have the ability to fight off the government just like they did against the British. No one would have voted for an amendment that allows the government to tell the public how they can fight back. Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Seems pretty straightforward.

[elguapo 4586]

25 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

The prefatory clause doesn't limit "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". All it does is state a purpose. Well regulated refers to being in good working order, armed for the common defense. It doesn't mean government intervention. How much sense does that make? The second amendment was supposed to be a guarantee to the American people that they would have the ability to fight off the government just like they did against the British. No one would have voted for an amendment that allows the government to tell the public how they can fight back. Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Seems pretty straightforward.

And that made sense in 1791, feel free to join us here in 2019 anytime.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

19 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

The prefatory clause doesn't limit "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". All it does is state a purpose. Well regulated refers to being in good working order, armed for the common defense. It doesn't mean government intervention. How much sense does that make? The second amendment was supposed to be a guarantee to the American people that they would have the ability to fight off the government just like they did against the British. No one would have voted for an amendment that allows the government to tell the public how they can fight back. Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Seems pretty straightforward.

What isn't straightforward is what the right consists of.   The amendment preserves the right, but doesn't specify its terms or limits.   It reasonably extends to the kinds of weapons people were allowed to have in the 18th century, and maybe modern versions that are qualitatively similar, but beyond that it's up for debate, as well as the circumstances under which you can bear those weapons. 

[Pato del Muerto 52488]

55 minutes ago, housious said:

Yeah. There would have to be some limits on accessories to shotguns, meaning you probably shouldn't be carrying around a Saiga with a massive drum mag. 

This is the key. It can be semi auto all day long, but instead of magazines and drums it would be 5 shots loaded one by one. 

You could do the same with rifles, Henry rifle style. 

Yeah you get 5 shots in half a second if you want, but

1) you then take 30 seconds or more to reload 5 more

2) 5 in a half second are going to be all more or less headed to he same spot. 

I think there’s a valid semi auto argument for bird hunting. 

Deer/elk/moose what have you, if you miss that first shot you probably don’t get a second chance so semi auto isn’t really advantageous in a rifle. 

[HRSchenker 2268]

4 minutes ago, elguapo said:

And that made sense in 1791, feel free to join us here in 2019 anytime.

Just go ahead and say it. Leave no doubt if you know what I mean.

[elguapo 4586]

10 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

Just go ahead and say it. Leave no doubt if you know what I mean.

muledick

[WhatTheBuck 28776]

Like the late Antonin Scalia, I'm a "Constitutional originalist."

The Second Amendment gives you the right to own a flintlock, nothing more. 

[retread 2951]

21 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

This is the key. It can be semi auto all day long, but instead of magazines and drums it would be 5 shots loaded one by one. 
1) you then take 30 seconds or more to reload 5 more
2) 5 in a half second are going to be all more or less headed to he same spot.  

But how am I going to fight off the 20 MS-13 members breaking into my house at night. This will be one of the arguments.

[Ths71 472]

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purposes as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.

However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment. As a general note, when analyzing statutes and ordinances, courts use three levels of scrutiny, depending on the issue at hand:

strict scrutiny
intermediate scrutiny
rational basis
Recent lower-court case law since Heller suggests that courts are willing to uphold

regulations which ban weapons on government property. US v Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir. 2009) (upholding defendant’s conviction for bringing a handgun onto post office property);
regulations which ban the illegal possession of a handgun as a juvenile, convicted felon. US v Rene, 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (holding that the Juvenile Delinquency Act ban of juvenile possession of handguns did not violate the Second Amendment);
regulations which require a permit to carry concealed weapon. Kachalsky v County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2nd Cir. 2012) (holding that a New York law preventing individuals from obtaining a license to possess a concealed firearm in public for general purposes unless the individual showed proper cause did not violate the Second Amendment.)
More recently, the Supreme Court reinforced its Heller ruling in its Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016) decision. The Court found that the lower "Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was wrong in the three reasons it offered for why the state could ban personal possession or use of a “stun gun” without violating the Second Amendment." The Supreme Court, however, remanded the case without further instructions, so this per curiam ruling did not do much to further clarify the Supreme Court's stance on the Second Amendment.






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JBJ 3654]

 

2 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Like the late Antonin Scalia, I'm a "Constitutional originalist."

The Second Amendment gives you the right to own a flintlock, nothing more. 

Besides cannons, grenades, and powderkeg bombs.

[Murfdogg21 4412]

49 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I disagree. It should be enforced. "Well regulated militia" doesn't mean that every limp dick dipshit with a Rambo fantasy should be allowed to own a stockpile of military grade weaponry. 

The right usually doesn’t quote the preface, and the left loves to use it as some kind of justification to limit weapons to military use. Is it that difficult to understand the framers’ intent? They just came off a bloody revolution against their own government that they considered tyrannical, a victory that could not have been achieved without armed citizens. It is the ultimate check if the government turns tyrannical or dictatorial enough that the citizens would put their lives in jeopardy to fight it. Taking away guns or limiting private citizens to .22 caliber rounds and 10 round capacity magazines compared to what DHS agents and national guard carry is not what they had in mind. The framers’ thought it important enough to make it 2nd. Armed citizens with high capacity magazines had not been a national crisis until the last decade. Smart people should figure out what changed and how to fix it, not use it as a means to undo a fundamental safeguard in the Constitution that half the country now disagrees with or doesn’t understand or worse, wants to see the citizens disarmed to prevent a revolution.

 

*queue the “bazookas, tanks, and helicopters” straw men. If it gets to a point people take up arms against the Feds, it is unlikely the military leadership will side with Washington. It is also unlikely President AOC napalms or nukes major cities if she wants to maintain any legitimacy to the rest of the nation (who are hopefully well armed with 9mm, .45, .223, .308, etc.).

[DixonHur 11296]

59 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

The prefatory clause doesn't limit "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". All it does is state a purpose. Well regulated refers to being in good working order, armed for the common defense. It doesn't mean government intervention. How much sense does that make? The second amendment was supposed to be a guarantee to the American people that they would have the ability to fight off the government just like they did against the British. No one would have voted for an amendment that allows the government to tell the public how they can fight back. Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Seems pretty straightforward.

Nice try, but you're wrong.

Militias were/are military organizations administered at the state level...ever heard of the Tennessee Volunteers? The idea was that states could defend themselves against the Federal Government, not individuals.   

By your definition, I can effectively "go to war" against the US anytime I don't like their policies.  Do you really think that was the intention?  That every citizen of the US was also considered a sovereign citizen?  Get your head out of the NRA's ass for a moment and think.

The Amendment, written by a Federalist, was a compromise and was based on the laws of feudal England.  Where guns were "well regulated" by a formal militia.  

Hell, 20 states, including Texas, still have official state militias.

So if you want to play Army with your AR-15, you can sign up.  

Edited August 6, 2019 by DixonHur

[RDCanecutter 26407]

10 minutes ago, retread said:

But how am I going to fight off the 20 MS-13 members breaking into my house at night. This will be one of the arguments.

Play classical music. They can't stand it, and will leave.

[WhatTheBuck 28776]

Chain of command, wear a uniform, etc. 

[elguapo 4586]

The right usually doesn’t quote the preface, and the left loves to use it as some kind of justification to limit weapons to military use. Is it that difficult to understand the framers’ intent? They just came off a bloody revolution against their own government that they considered tyrannical, a victory that could not have been achieved without armed citizens. It is the ultimate check if the government turns tyrannical or dictatorial enough that the citizens would put their lives in jeopardy to fight it. Taking away guns or limiting private citizens to .22 caliber rounds and 10 round capacity magazines compared to what DHS agents and national guard carry is not what they had in mind. The framers’ thought it important enough to make it 2nd. Armed citizens with high capacity magazines had not been a national crisis until the last decade. Smart people should figure out what changed and how to fix it, not use it as a means to undo a fundamental safeguard in the Constitution that half the country now disagrees with or doesn’t understand or worse, wants to see the citizens disarmed to prevent a revolution.
 
*queue the “bazookas, tanks, and helicopters” straw men. If it gets to a point people take up arms against the Feds, it is unlikely the military leadership will side with Washington. It is also unlikely President AOC napalms or nukes major cities if she wants to maintain any legitimacy to the rest of the nation (who are hopefully well armed with 9mm, .45, .223, .308, etc.).

Live look-in at Murfdogg21

[RDCanecutter 26407]

11 minutes ago, JBJ said:

 

Besides cannons, grenades, and powderkeg bombs.

And sabers. Some of the most vicious killing in the Revolutionary War was done by saber-armed cavalry driving broken infantry before them and going all MS-13 with the cold steel faster than anybody could reload.

Not sure what the open-carry laws are for swords.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

CNN is reporting that FBI is opening a domestic terrorism investigation into the Gilroy shooter.   They've apparently uncovered digital evidence of a political motive.

[HRSchenker 2268]

8 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Nice try, but you're wrong.

Militias were/are military organizations administered at the state level...ever heard of the Tennessee Volunteers? The idea was that states could defend themselves against the Federal Government, not individuals.   

By your definition, I can effectively "go to war" against the US anytime I don't like their policies.  Do you really think that was the intention?  That every citizen of the US was also considered a sovereign citizen?  Get your head out of the NRA's ass for a moment and think.

The Amendment, written by a Federalist, was a compromise and was based on the laws of feudal England.  Where guns were "well regulated" by a formal militia.  

Hell, 20 states, including Texas, still have official state militias.

So if you want to play Army with your AR-15, you can sign up.  

There's no dispute that militias existed during those times but the second amendment secures the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the militia. The second amendment protects an individual right, not a collective. The militia can't exist if the citizenry are not armed. There were no ammo depots in 1789. Sorry but you're wrong.

 

16 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Like the late Antonin Scalia, I'm a "Constitutional originalist."

The Second Amendment gives you the right to own a flintlock, nothing more. 

Yikes. That's about as silly as saying the first amendment doesn't apply to the internet. GOP controlled senate plans to shut down berniesanders.com and the Supreme Court will stay silent. What a time to be alive.

[Biff Tannen 45672]

[jimmyjazz 45896]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

That’s fair, as I know you’ve stated before that you aren’t very familiar with guns.

<redacted>

My guess is that the AR is popular because 1)entry level is affordable 2) it’s military like, machismo feeling bullshit 3) the recoil is nothing (I’m assuming these mass killers are generally pussies) 4) they may not even know any better - most are young and probably only know about guns what they’ve read about (obv not with LV guy). 5) it does a really good job at killing things. 

Thank you for your honest reply.  I appreciate it.  I'll come back with some thoughts about the kinetic energy etc. of the different types of projectiles when I've had a chance to dig in a bit more.  I think it's safe to say a single bullet is different than a single pellet, but of course one would almost never be hit by a lethal single pellet, so it probably comes down more to the nuance of how much energy and destructive force hits the target in an average shot (along with distance, accuracy, etc.).

That said, wouldn't the military's preference for the AR-15 contradict most of your points?  (1) They don't care about cost.  (2) They don't care about "machismo".  (3) I assume they do care about recoil, at least to some degree -- I believe low recoil was a big impetus in the development of that weapon.  (4) They definitely know better.

I have yet to see any convincing argument that the AR-15 and its variants aren't the weapon of choice when it comes to killing a lot of people in a short period of time.

[DixonHur 11296]

3 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

CNN is reporting that FBI is opening a domestic terrorism investigation into the Gilroy shooter.   They've apparently uncovered digital evidence of a political motive.

he "identified himself on Instagram as of Italian and Iranian heritage."

Icono?

3 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

The militia can't exist if the citizenry are not armed.

Dumbest statement I've seen in a while.  Militias are military organizations...the term "bear arms" is a military term.  You might as well say the Army can't exist if the citizens aren't armed.  

Speaking of which, even the military doesn't let you take your weapon home...but you think the founders wanted individuals to be armed to the teeth in case the government launches an attack on their house?  Do you even hear yourself speak?

Let's imagine how something less personal might play out.  Let's say the evil Dems take over the government and decide to invade Texas.  Do you really think it's gonna be an untrained rag-tag bunch of individuals that are gonna save the day?  Do they go on 8chan to rally the troops?  Let's meet at the Whataburger guys!  Might as well have your flag football team take on the Cowboys. 

3 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

There were no ammo depots in 1789.

You might wanna do some research on that...

[GW Hayduke 1953]

We need to:

- elect progressives

- reform campaign finance, get the gun lobby out of DC

- expand the fairness doctrine to cable news, neuter Fox 

- implement a licensing system: only those that have a demonstrated need for semi-automatics can possess one

- implement a registration and buy back system: track or remove semi-autos from the population

[Brisketexan 105092]

1 hour ago, HRSchenker said:

No one would have voted for an amendment that allows the government to tell the public how they can fight back. Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Seems pretty straightforward.

You bet.

So, you have an absolute right, that cannot be restricted or limited by the government, to own a fully automatic weapon.  Correct?

Wait, what's that, it IS restricted?  Huh.  Interesting.

Quote

Specifically, the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA), which was prompted by rampant gangland violence often perpetrated by the likes of Al Capone with the Thompson submachine gun. You may know the Thompson by its nickname, the “Tommy gun,” known for its distinctive round drum magazine.

It takes a lot to get your hands on one of these guns.

“These weapons entail the necessity for a background check,” said David Nielsen, an attorney specializing in firearms issues and president of the IAWCA. “[The] FBI looks at you, you have to send in fingerprints and photographs, and you do a transfer tax along with each weapon transaction costing $200.”

A member of the Idaho Automatic Weapons Collectors’ Association checks his ammunition during the group’s annual Pumpkin Shoot. Machine guns are one of the most heavily regulated categories of weapons in the U.S. and fall under a rare example of stringent federal gun control.

Heath Druzin/Boise State Public Radio

In other words, unlike most guns, you can’t just show up at Walmart and take one home.

It can take close to a year to get approved to purchase each machine gun.

Plus, because it has been illegal for civilians to buy new machine guns since 1986, only used guns are available on the market. That means it’s not only a lengthy process but an expensive one.

“If you want a cheap hobby — I don’t know — stay at home,” Pingree said.

Pingree’s not kidding.

A single machine gun often runs into the tens of thousands of dollars and that’s before purchasing ammunition for the gun. That can run as high as $5 per round.

Scott Pingree of the Idaho Automatic Weapons Collectors’ Association talks about some of the classic rifles from around the world in his collection.

Heath Druzin/Boise State Public Radio

Making new machine guns for civilians was all but banned in 1986 as part of a compromise in the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act. That’s when prices for machine guns began to skyrocket.

So, the argument that the government cannot limit your access to weapons is a dead-letter.  The gov't already regulates it.  You can't just walk up and buy a full-auto weapon at Walmart.

Again, ARMS are already significantly regulated.  It's difficult as hell to access some of them -- fully auto weapons, grenades, etc.  It's flat-out illegal to access others (sorry, you're not going to be able to acquire an Apache with a full weapons load).  And that's what the 2nd amendment refers to -- ARMS.  Not guns, arms.  Which we KNOW are already restricted.  So, stop with the "the government can't restrict access to guns AT ALL!" argument.  It's flat-wrong.

[retread 2951]

Interesting how Congress isn't even pretending like they might come back to DC after these shootings. I guess that Miller Lite at Gulf Shores is just too cold.

[jimmyjazz 45896]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

You bet.

So, you have an absolute right, that cannot be restricted or limited by the government, to own a fully automatic weapon.  Correct?

Wait, what's that, it IS restricted?  Huh.  Interesting.

So, the argument that the government cannot limit your access to weapons is a dead-letter.  The gov't already regulates it.  You can't just walk up and buy a full-auto weapon at Walmart.

I will keep pointing this out until I'm blue in the face, just in case some mouth-breather catches a whiff of truth juice and learns something:

1.  assault weapons (as defined in the ban) were outlawed from 1994-2004 across the United States

2.  assault weapons (as defined in the ban) are currently outlawed in Maryland AND the ban has survived legal scrutiny up the appeals chain to SCOTUS,, which wouldn't even hear the appeal.

 

Suck on that, "originalists".

[tchookem 3900]

Seems like bearing down hard on the well-regulated militia part of the 2nd Amendment would work wonders. I mean an actual military-level unit, not a pack of Michigan flea-bags off at deer camp.
Regulations to include physicals, psychological screenings, challenging training, hell, just having to be somewhere at a certain time and follow some rules, that'd be too much to bear for most of these schlubs.
I think back to the start of Basic Training (I was Xth Legion in Gaul, how bout y'all), there were all sorts of rowdy little tough guys that you'd expect to see in a Starbucks toting an AR. After a week or two of mild stress, those were the guys who were gone. No doubt some of them went home to legally-purchased armaments. What if they couldn't? "You did not meet militia requirements, you will not be needing weapons."
Don't like those rules? Stop being weak and crazy.

Tie all gun ownership to militia membership. The states could give militia members ratings that allow different levels of gun ownership. If a state so chose they could let you register online, show up for drills twice a year, and you get to own hunting-level firearms. Meeting more stringent requirements and attending more frequent training gets you a higher-level of weapons.

Add in a clause that says the state militia assumes liability for any crimes committed by a member with a gun (after all, the militia did sign off on the guy), and watch how stringent guns laws become.

It would also satisfy the 2A's actual intent of being a check on federal government tyranny.

[atomheartbevo 89643]

11 minutes ago, retread said:

Interesting how Congress isn't even pretending like they might come back to DC after these shootings. I guess that Miller Lite at Gulf Shores is just too cold.

If they truly only cared about the 2A and gun owners, the Republicans would be rushing to get some red flag legislation ready when they return.    Keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill should be something they can all get behind, as well as the NRA.

Instead, they  bitch about video games and tell everybody to fuck off, opening the way for e Democrats to sweep in and get a stricter sequel to the AWB from 1994-2004.  

[Pato del Muerto 52488]

Sounds as if the fully auto weapons and their ammunition have a price point that is fairly restrictive in and of itself. 

Btw, I can go down the road to the Cody Firearms Experience and shoot a Thompson for like $20-50. And a mini gun.

So “getting my hands on one” in the most literal sense is actually very easy. Walking out with it I’d suspect would require significant effort and bloodshed, or one hell of a burglary.

a former coworker killed a moose with a revolver a couple years ago, and they bow hunt lots of critters, so the only real argument for any kind of semi auto is protection.

jimmy the drug addict will run away rather than engaging your 5 shot shotgun or 6 shot revolver  

ms13 will kill you no matter what you have if they want you dead.

if we are taking up arms against the United States government, then either the military is on our side or we will fail no matter what our arsenal is.  If the US military is willing to slaughter armed citizens revolting, the armed citizens probably are in the wrong or we are so far down the despotic rule rabbit hole that there’s no way back.

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

23 minutes ago, retread said:

Interesting how Congress isn't even pretending like they might come back to DC after these shootings. I guess that Miller Lite at Gulf Shores is just too cold.

I'm kinda hoping that the Democratic members are having a supersecret meeting complete with s'mores while they figure out who they can get to vote with them so we can get the turkey in chief out of office without a pardon.

[fattyflattie 4639]

26 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Thank you for your honest reply.  I appreciate it.  I'll come back with some thoughts about the kinetic energy etc. of the different types of projectiles when I've had a chance to dig in a bit more.  I think it's safe to say a single bullet is different than a single pellet, but of course one would almost never be hit by a lethal single pellet, so it probably comes down more to the nuance of how much energy and destructive force hits the target in an average shot (along with distance, accuracy, etc.).

That said, wouldn't the military's preference for the AR-15 contradict most of your points?  (1) They don't care about cost.  (2) They don't care about "machismo".  (3) I assume they do care about recoil, at least to some degree -- I believe low recoil was a big impetus in the development of that weapon.  (4) They definitely know better.

I have yet to see any convincing argument that the AR-15 and its variants aren't the weapon of choice when it comes to killing a lot of people in a short period of time.

Kinetic energy (per projectile) will (very likely) go to AR.  Ballistics is a crazy science, for example a 22 mag is a very efficient round as well, even tho it’s a “starter gun” type many had as kids.  

AR’s are lightweight, light recoil, very modular killing machines.  They are a choice weapon for mass murder. They also check many of the boxes I suggested, along with all of the boxes you suggested. I was simply bringing to light it can be accomplished as well (if not better) with weapons we all (most) aren’t as “threatened” by.   I even thought of another after I hit send, which is rifles need to be aimed. Shotguns, not so much - point and shoot.  They are “scatter guns” after all.  

What I wrote hurts my argument and stance, in the end.  I wingshoot and shoot clays/trap. While I’m more of an O/U guy at heart, I hate to think what could happen with an off the shelf, unmodified semi auto 20/12 ga should someone decide to make that their killing machine of choice.  We all know it’s a very difficult issue, and it goes far beyond AR’s.  

[Hank Kingsley 20914]

31 minutes ago, retread said:

Interesting how Congress isn't even pretending like they might come back to DC after these shootings. I guess that Miller Lite at Gulf Shores is just too cold.

The D Senators should have all flown back to D.C., alerted the media, and held a press conference on the steps of the U.S. Capitol demanding that Republicans join them to vote on common sense gun legislation. 

 

 

[Rougarou 594]

3 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The D Senators should have all flown back to D.C., alerted the media, and held a press conference on the steps of the U.S. Capitol demanding that Republicans join them to vote on common sense gun legislation. 

 

 

The problem with common sense is it ain't too common these days.

[jimmyjazz 45896]

11 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Kinetic energy (per projectile) will (very likely) go to AR.

No "very likely" needed.  It's not even a horse race.  0.5*m*v2 is going to go to the far heavier bullet over a pellet every time if the muzzle velocities are reasonably close.

 

Quote

AR’s are lightweight, light recoil, very modular killing machines.  They are a choice weapon for mass murder. They also check many of the boxes I suggested, along with all of the boxes you suggested. I was simply bringing to light it can be accomplished as well (if not better) with weapons we all (most) aren’t as “threatened” by.

If it can be done "better" with other weapons then why isn't the military using those weapons?  Is this just a question of tradeoffs; e.g. a particular shotgun might be an even better killing machine than an M-15 but we're not gonna ask soldiers to lug the added weight around?

[wildcat09 29348]

Is this conversation really happening? Of fucking course a semi-auto rifle with a 30+ shot mag capacity is going to kill more people in a mass shooting than your standard shotgun.

[HRSchenker 2268]

48 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You bet.

So, you have an absolute right, that cannot be restricted or limited by the government, to own a fully automatic weapon.  Correct?

Wait, what's that, it IS restricted?  Huh.  Interesting.

So, the argument that the government cannot limit your access to weapons is a dead-letter.  The gov't already regulates it.  You can't just walk up and buy a full-auto weapon at Walmart.

Again, ARMS are already significantly regulated.  It's difficult as hell to access some of them -- fully auto weapons, grenades, etc.  It's flat-out illegal to access others (sorry, you're not going to be able to acquire an Apache with a full weapons load).  And that's what the 2nd amendment refers to -- ARMS.  Not guns, arms.  Which we KNOW are already restricted.  So, stop with the "the government can't restrict access to guns AT ALL!" argument.  It's flat-wrong.

I sure do enjoy having words put into my mouth. Where exactly did I say that the second amendment has no limits? Full automatic weapons are indeed protected by the second amendment and both of us have the right to purchase them. You disagree?

[immortal13 4059]

1 minute ago, HRSchenker said:

I sure do enjoy having words put into my mouth. Where exactly did I say that the second amendment has no limits? Full automatic weapons are indeed protected by the second amendment and both of us have the right to purchase them. You disagree?

He is googling it right now...

[Born to Run 6569]

That’s fair, as I know you’ve stated before that you aren’t very familiar with guns.  A 12 gauge semi auto gun firing 00 buckshot would be as lethal in many of the mass shootings we’ve witnessed over the last few years, LV being the obvious exception.  
A 3” 12ga 00 buckshot Shell contains between 8 and 16 .33 caliber pellets.  Average rounds are 1100-1600 fps.   So just using dumb math we can say 12 pellets at 1300 fps, very similar to a 3” 1-1/8oz off the shelf load.  
Just your off the shelf dove gun (Berreta A400) can hold 5 rounds with the plug out.  
The dipshit in Ohio fired 41 projectiles iirc, in 30 seconds.  The shotgun mentioned above can fire 60 projectiles in 3 seconds. And I’m not joking about the 3 seconds, I’ll find a movie clip after this post (on phone). Obviously each projectile isn’t hitting 1 person/per, however with the right distance, proper choke, and proper crowd density, it would be fucking devastating.  
That was an off the shelf gun that is used for dove hunting 99.9999999% of the time.
Now let’s examine a purpose made shotgun such as the DP-12, which holds 16 shells. 16*12= 192.   192 .33 caliber projectiles (43% diameter increase over 5.56/.223, albeit a reduced fps) in seconds.   The AR bullet is superior in causing damage, for sure.
My guess is that the AR is popular because 1)entry level is affordable 2) it’s military like, machismo feeling bullshit 3) the recoil is nothing (I’m assuming these mass killers are generally pussies) 4) they may not even know any better - most are young and probably only know about guns what they’ve read about (obv not with LV guy). 5) it does a really good job at killing things. 
The post I quoted said take away (buy back) all AR’s and I responded that would be fine with me.  Or limit the high capacity mags, I don’t care about those either. My point was that you can make rather benign “hunting” (A-400) guns just as if not more deadly in the right situations. And these are planned attacks (mostly), so I’m sure someone could plan the right way to make it just as deadly. 
 
 

In some situations lethality could be comparable, but many others no. Not even close. Reloading is a clear problem in a shotgun versus high cap rifle. Bullets can be much more lethal by design . Recoil is another matter and these pussy ass guys would probably fall on their ass if they shot 3 1/2" 00 buckshot.

Shotguns haven't been fetishised like assault rifles. Its a bizarre trend where someone's main identity is owning one, flaunting it, just rubbing society's nose in it to own the libs. Play soldier and rambo fantasies. When I was growing up, hunters and gun enthusiasts were instructed to be discreet, polite and cautious. No gun racks. No deer strapped to the hood. Concealed pistol stays concealed. This was hunter ed course and the NRA.

Now youve got AR s on yoga pants being sold across the street from a school. The day after a school shooting. And Vegas. And ...
Just zero common sense or understanding that a stubborn lack of couth will sway public opinion further towards confiscation. Not to mention its just shitty.


Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[elguapo 4586]

1 minute ago, immortal13 said:

He is googling it right now...

Oh hey look who decided to come out from hiding in the Daily Texan thread.

[Brisketexan 105092]

2 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

Where exactly did I say that the second amendment has no limits?

Ummm....in your post.

Quote

It doesn't mean government intervention. How much sense does that make? The second amendment was supposed to be a guarantee to the American people that they would have the ability to fight off the government just like they did against the British. No one would have voted for an amendment that allows the government to tell the public how they can fight back.

So, you used, like, words and stuff to say exactly that - the 2nd amendment doesn't provide for gov't intervention, and doesn't "allow  the government to tell the public how they can fight back." 

How is restricting your right to own a fully auto weapon (and by the way, we do NOT have a right to purchase ANY full auto weapon made after a certain year, so yes, your right to purchase a fully auto M-4 is completely restricted, as just one example) NOT a limitation on the second amendment?  How is PROHIBITING you from owning certain auto weapons not "government intervention?"

And again, you are indulging in the logical fallacy of arguing as if "ARMS" is limited to "FIREARMS."  It's not.  "Arms" means weapons.  And the law already PROHIBITS you, outright, from even possessing numerous weapons: grenades, land mines, missiles, etc.  So, the government sure as shit HAS told you "how you can fight back."  They've said "you can't do it with grenades and land mines."

[Dropout 355]

https://www.wfaa.com/mobile/article/opinion/dale-hansen-commentary-white-guys-like-the-2-shooters-this-weekend-never-represent-the-race-or-religion/287-0997faaf-03ec-4660-8bf6-0de0f97ee708

Dale Hansen on point again. I appreciate the fact he uses his voice and expresses his opinion.

[Brisketexan 105092]

13 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

In some situations lethality could be comparable, but many others no. Not even close. Reloading is a clear problem in a shotgun versus high cap rifle. Bullets can be much more lethal by design . Recoil is another matter and these pussy ass guys would probably fall on their ass if they shot 3 1/2" 00 buckshot.

Shotguns haven't been fetishised like assault rifles. Its a bizarre trend where someone's main identity is owning one, flaunting it, just rubbing society's nose in it to own the libs. Play soldier and rambo fantasies. When I was growing up, hunters and gun enthusiasts were instructed to be discreet, polite and cautious. No gun racks. No deer strapped to the hood. Concealed pistol stays concealed. This was hunter ed course and the NRA.

Now youve got AR s on yoga pants being sold across the street from a school. The day after a school shooting. And Vegas. And ...
Just zero common sense or understanding that a stubborn lack of couth will sway public opinion further towards confiscation. Not to mention its just shitty.


Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
 

As someone who has been a hunter and gun owner since I was a kid, I used to attend gun shows.  Back in my high school days -- think mid 1980s -- they were largely "outdoors" affairs.  Most booths had what we would all recognize as hunting weapons -- shotguns, bolt action rifles, etc.  Others would have general outdoors gear (tents, backbacks, etc.).  A few would have handguns, but back then, semi-autos were maybe 25% of the inventory, and many of them were Model 1911s and whatnot.  A few booths had some old military surplus -- you could buy an M-1 Garand or an M-1 Carbine, for example.  Maybe some WWII history books, too.

Then, by the late 80s to early 90s, the atmosphere changed.  More modern military-style weapons showed up.  Lots of booths on "home-defense" and even "prepper" type themes.  I remember a booth selling customized shotgun shells filled with flechettes, or mini-bolo balls with razor sharp wire connecting them.  And then another booth with other various "weapons" - like a cane that with a push of a button would show four sharp blades along the bottom.  And a display case with various commemorative knives, including one with a KKK logo on it.  As I saw the cane, I couldn't help but ask the booth owner "what the hell do you need that thing for?"  He answered with a grin "it's good for fighting off dogs.....of ANY color."

And....that was the last gun show I ever went to.  I don't know why it all changed, but it sure as shit did.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Brisketexan

[jimmyjazz 45896]

21 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Is this conversation really happening? Of fucking course a semi-auto rifle with a 30+ shot mag capacity is going to kill more people in a mass shooting than your standard shotgun.

I want him to explain how 5 shotgun shells with 12 pellets each can be as or more devastating than a high-capacity semi-auto rifle, especially considering reload times.  This is an argument I see often, and I've not once seen a cogent defense.  I'm waiting.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

12 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

I sure do enjoy having words put into my mouth. Where exactly did I say that the second amendment has no limits? Full automatic weapons are indeed protected by the second amendment and both of us have the right to purchase them. You disagree?

I assumed that was by operation of statute, not that it is unconstitutional.  Has the Court held that the 2nd Amendment prohibits the resale of older fully automatic weapon? 

[retread 2951]

31 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The D Senators should have all flown back to D.C., alerted the media, and held a press conference on the steps of the U.S. Capitol demanding that Republicans join them to vote on common sense gun legislation. 

The Ds seemingly have no desire to lead on anything.

[fattyflattie 4639]

29 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Is this conversation really happening? Of fucking course a semi-auto rifle with a 30+ shot mag capacity is going to kill more people in a mass shooting than your standard shotgun.

Yeah I know huh, that’s why we use rifles for fleeting targets. Wait. 

[Brisketexan 105092]

5 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Yeah I know huh, that’s why we use rifles for fleeting targets. Wait. 

1 -- people ain't nearly as fast and evasive as a pintail.  If you start running away from me when you're 10 feet away, I'll still be able to drop your ass pretty easily with an AR for the first few seconds of your run.

2 -- large crowds of people make it even easier.  Don't even have to aim as much.

Yeah, I might put more pellets on target if I used a shotgun, but the lethality of a 5.56 round is a lot higher.  So, maybe you "shoot" 40 people, but you only kill a few.  With a 5.56 round....you're kill rate looks to be around 40% or better, based on recent shootings.

If you were tasked with going into a target full of people (and let's say they were all bad guys -- it is the ISIS neighborhood Wal-Mart - so we're talking about a bona-fide, legitimate mission), and your job was to kill as many as possible....an AR-type weapon with a good-sized mag (15-25 rounds) would be your choice.  You know that.  And more importantly, the fuckers who like to murder big groups of people know that.  It's not like they're selecting the SECOND most effective way to slaughter people with a gun.*

 

* Of course, we'll have to have a different conversation when one of them takes out a Fiesta Mart with a massive truck bomb or similar IED.  Which will happen, it's just a matter of time.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Brisketexan