Active shooter thread

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

I'm honestly surprised you'd say anything. You just reminded me to do so. I'd have died without. Looks like you have me for a few more minutes longer.

English motherfucker do you speak it?

[workswithseed 2036]

Just now, JimmyJames said:

English motherfucker do you speak it?

Exactly!

[Homercles 10205]

My takeaway from this enlightening conversation is that right still can’t meme worth a shit.  Then again they mostly don’t have any legit material to pull from anyways.  

[GRHorn 105]

3 hours ago, aggie08 said:

American gun owners who actually pretend that they own their weapons for the potential of having to overthrow their oppressive government is seriously one of the more pathetic things I can think of.

Sounds like you don’t understand or value the 2nd amendment, and that’s fine. 

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

Because I freak out a little when I see the "Active Shooter" thread at the top of the page, I move we rename this one "Highly Regarded Gun Control Debate," and save the original for news of each new massacre we need to find ways of not doing anything about, ever. 

[aggie08 21432]

12 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Sounds like you don’t understand or value the 2nd amendment, and that’s fine. 

Oh shut the fuck up. I've owned guns. All of my friends own guns. You can own any and every gun you so desire... l honestly couldn't care less.

All I ask is that you stop peddling the bullshit power fantasy that you're buying them in the event that you have to overthrow your government oppressors. It's bullshit, and you know it's bullshit, but it makes you feel important and you think the libs will jump all over you if you just acknowledge that you like guns.

[workswithseed 2036]

5 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Oh shut the fuck up. I've owned guns. All of my friends own guns. You can own any and every gun you so desire... l honestly couldn't care less.

All I ask is that you stop peddling the bullshit power fantasy that you're buying them in the event that you have to overthrow your government oppressors. It's bullshit, and you know it's bullshit, but it makes you feel important and you think the libs will jump all over you if you just acknowledge that you like guns.

You sound like a fud. Do you believe that women should arm themselves with shotguns?

[workswithseed 2036]

42 minutes ago, Homercles said:

My takeaway from this enlightening conversation is that right still can’t meme worth a shit.  Then again they mostly don’t have any legit material to pull from anyways.  

I haven't seen a good leftist meme.

[Mole 4320]

I’ll admit to my ignorance about most gun-related matters (I’ve only touched firearms handed to me by Uncle Sam), but the 2nd amendment as a threat of violence towards an oppressive government doesn’t seem readily apparent from any imaginable reading of it. If that was its purpose, you’d think they would have put that in there.

Are there any well-researched summaries of how the founders went from discussing militia participation (negating the need for a standing army while also keeping slaves and natives in line) to our children having active shooter drills so we can pretend that we would overthrow a hypothetical fascist government? Point A to point B doesn’t seem to be a straight line.

[Dahobbs 17447]

32 minutes ago, Mole said:

I’ll admit to my ignorance about most gun-related matters (I’ve only touched firearms handed to me by Uncle Sam), but the 2nd amendment as a threat of violence towards an oppressive government doesn’t seem readily apparent from any imaginable reading of it. If that was its purpose, you’d think they would have put that in there.

Are there any well-researched summaries of how the founders went from discussing militia participation (negating the need for a standing army while also keeping slaves and natives in line) to our children having active shooter drills so we can pretend that we would overthrow a hypothetical fascist government? Point A to point B doesn’t seem to be a straight line.

Well, a balance of state power vs federal power was certainly a part of the historical background of militias and the concept of the right to bear arms. Certainly there is some justification for believing that part of the purpose was to provide the states protection against a tyrannical federal government. But whether that specific issue was actually part of the intent for the amendment is bit more murky.  

Edited March 29, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Gatorubet 30099]

Are there any well-researched summaries of how the founders went from discussing militia participation (negating the need for a standing army while also keeping slaves and natives in line) to our children having active shooter drills so we can pretend that we would overthrow a hypothetical fascist government? Point A to point B doesn’t seem to be a straight line.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Read this. Dissent and majority opinion. 157 pages of some damn fine arguments by both sides.

[washparkhorn 9935]

1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

I haven't seen a good leftist meme.

[tx 3 putt 76371]

2 hours ago, workswithseed said:

No, but I know you seem to not understand what the second amendment is for. It wasn't for 'fun.'

 

[washparkhorn 9935]

[GRHorn 105]

 

[RomaVicta 29784]

Some of you are really buying into the notion that stupid sells. 

[TheStoicPaisano 9904]

I don’t think a gun would’ve helped Laura vs. Killer BOB.

[WhatTheBuck 28711]

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

Some of you are really buying into the notion that stupid sells. 

This is sarcasm, right?

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2059]

the assault wagon meme is quality

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

10 hours ago, Mole said:

I’ll admit to my ignorance about most gun-related matters (I’ve only touched firearms handed to me by Uncle Sam), but the 2nd amendment as a threat of violence towards an oppressive government doesn’t seem readily apparent from any imaginable reading of it.

we just witnessed the head of government openly attempt to destroy the foundation of democracy by trying to overturn the results of a free and fair election by force. quite possibly the most tailor-made example of an oppressive government, a 2nd amendment nut's wet dream...and not only were they not bearing arms to rise up against that oppression, they were actively supporting it.

[WhatTheBuck 28711]

7 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

we just witnessed the head of government openly attempt to destroy the foundation of democracy by trying to overturn the results of a free and fair election by force. quite possibly the most tailor-made example of an oppressive government, a 2nd amendment nut's wet dream...and not only were they not bearing arms to rise up against that oppression, they were actively supporting it.

Exactly. That’s when they showed their hand. They don’t stand for the defense of democracy against tyranny. They stand for tyranny. That is the exact opposite of what the words “well regulated militia” in the 2nd Amendment mean. (Three words you can never get any of these gun nuts to explain or even acknowledge.)

Check your State Constitution. In most cases you’ll probably find that militias are under the control of the Governor. I don’t know about Texas but that’s how it is in Ohio and Michigan. And in Nevada where my 300+ pound older brother who has to sleep with a CPAP machine lives with a massive arsenal of weapons, including assault weapons which he has no earthly reason to own except as a political statement.

[RomaVicta 29784]

34 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

This is sarcasm, right?

Is this?

Look at the posts above mine and I think my reference isn't obscure. Some are so stupid that they actually undermine their own point by making themselves look simple.

[bernorange 8348]

8 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

... “well regulated militia” in the 2nd Amendment mean. ...

https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/

[mdmost 42865]

9 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Exactly. That’s when they showed their hand. They don’t stand for the defense of democracy against tyranny. They stand for tyranny. That is the exact opposite of what the words “well regulated militia” in the 2nd Amendment mean. (Three words you can never get any of these gun nuts to explain or even acknowledge.)

Check your State Constitution. In most cases you’ll probably find that militias are under the control of the Governor. I don’t know about Texas but that’s how it is in Ohio and Michigan. And in Nevada where my 300+ pound older brother who has to sleep with a CPAP machine lives with a massive arsenal of weapons, including assault weapons which he has no earthly reason to own except as a political statement.

Well, if it's a black guy or a woman at the head of our state and/or federal government, they're for standing against tyranny. 

[WhatTheBuck 28711]

19 minutes ago, bernorange said:

https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/

People who reference reason.com confuse the word “reason” in the domain name to mean they’ll find actual reason there. I’d recommend consulting Federalist 29 and 69 instead. 

Edited March 29, 2021 by WhatTheBuck

[WhatTheBuck 28711]

11 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Is this?

Look at the posts above mine and I think my reference isn't obscure. Some are so stupid that they actually undermine their own point by making themselves look simple.

If you don’t think stupid sells, and sells well, then you haven’t been paying attention. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point. But a two-bit con man and reality tv star was actually elected President and a good part of our economy has been based on selling stupid for centuries, from snake oil to the pet rock to reality tv. P.T. Barnum was right.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20344]

These shootings are becoming so commonplace, maybe we should have an "active shooter of the day"  thread  that is dated. Like start one up at 6:00 a.m. every morning. We could rate the shooters on such things as style points, gun porn, social media posts, degree of difficulty etc... like the Olympics.   

[hookemATL 11610]

16 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Your thought process made me think of this.

Hey look it’s not a YouTube video!  Here’s a cookie 

[aggie08 21432]

16 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

These shootings are becoming so commonplace, maybe we should have an "active shooter of the day"  thread  that is dated. Like start one up at 6:00 a.m. every morning. We could rate the shooters on such things as style points, gun porn, social media posts, degree of difficulty etc... like the Olympics.   

Oh those places definitely already exist in the dark corners of the internet.

[Guest Lobo]

Yeah, I GRHorn missed the boat on the first meme.  The most heavily fortified I have ever seen the White House was when they literally put up those giant cement walls and had 10x the armed guards outside than Biden did...and that was under his hero---Trump.  

The assault wagon one is funny though because I remember way too may carpools in that first type of wagon growing up, plus it does kinda look like every rifle I ever handled.  And the assault wagon is just funny looking, looks like the death vehicle from "Animal House" kinda.  However, it could all be tied together really well with Hunting Wagon, Assault Wagon, and 2A Wagon which would be the Family Truckster from "Vacation."  You think you look like a badass gun owner, showing off your constitutional right to bear arms, but in reality you're a fucking tool who can't protect his family in East Saint Louis.  

[wildcat09 29243]

There's a whole lot of amateur historians on both sides of this argument with plenty of ammunition to support their argument, because the amendment itself is written so fucking stupidly. 

I think the best historical analysis would tell us that the intent behind the amendment (to the extent we could pretend that an agreed-upon collective intent existed) was probably to prohibit the federal government from seizing all of the arms of a state's (free) populace, because the states needed armed militia to protect the country (and to capture runaway slaves) since the federal government wasn't supposed to have a standing army.

This is just what I've gathered from my own amateur historianing, which is naturally infused to some degree with my own politics. But if you look hard enough, you can find something to support a compelling argument for either side of this debate.  This entire exercise is a great example of why originalism is dumb as hell. Judges playing amateur historian so they can cherry pick shit from history to support their preferred interpretation shouldn't be how the meaning of laws are determined. In Heller, Scalia pretended that we could clearly distinguish the meanings of "bear arms" and "bear arms against," as those phrases would have been commonly understood in 1791, so that he could pretend he was basing his decision on something other than his own policy preferences. But that's all it really was: him saying his policy preference should be law. And because Congress can't say "no, that's fucking stupid" and overrule him, we've all got to play the same fucking game and pretend we're right about the history when not a single one of us really has any idea. We're all stuck in this shitty place, victims of this not even still alive shithead's gun lust, bickering over whether he was right or wrong because we can't say "who fucking cares? Let's fucking fix this shit." 

[RomaVicta 29784]

13 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

If you don’t think stupid sells, and sells well, then you haven’t been paying attention. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point. But a two-bit con man and reality tv star was actually elected President and a good part of our economy has been based on selling stupid for centuries, from snake oil to the pet rock to reality tv. P.T. Barnum was right.

Ahhh. Now I see. I was unclear. I meant that consumers of stupid seem to think it's effective to regurgitate it as some form of argument. They're so bought in, that they can't see it.

The only mental gymnastics going on in that stupid political cartoon are those applied to inventing the gun-taker, applying scattered lib myths whispered and shouted among the stupid cognoscenti, and then attacking that strawman.

The cartoon is self-damning. There are many examples above that. With the obviuos exception of sheer genius of the "between 60K and 2M" factoid. You roll out something like that in a discussion and you're winning that pie!!

Hell, the whole debate is often reduced to "they say they want to take away our guns!" when virtually nobody has suggested that.

I'm sure there are solid arguments for owning guns. I was educated about the silliness of a ban on suppressers; they protect the ears of the user. It's rare the discussion is at that level as easy to grasp as it is.

Instead, some happily strive on in Idiot World.

[WhatTheBuck 28711]

3 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Ahhh. Now I see. I was unclear. I meant that consumers of stupid seem to think it's effective to regurgitate it as some form of argument. They're so bought in, that they can't see it.

The only mental gymnastics going on in that stupid political cartoon are those applied to inventing the gun-taker, applying scattered lib myths whispered and shouted among the stupid cognoscenti, and then attacking that strawman.

The cartoon is self-damning. There are many examples above that. With the obviuos exception of sheer genius of the "between 60K and 2M" factoid. You roll out something like that in a discussion and you're winning that pie!!

Hell, the whole debate is often reduced to "they say they want to take away our guns!" when virtually nobody has suggested that.

I'm sure there are solid arguments for owning guns. I was educated about the silliness of a ban on suppressers; they protect the ears of the user. It's rare the discussion is at that level as easy to grasp as it is.

Instead, some happily strive on in Idiot World.

Ah, got it. 

[RPM 26227]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

P.T. Barnum was right.

fact

[B00M 6280]

30 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

"who fucking cares? Let's fucking fix this shit." 

Ok.. So how do you fix it? You mentioned not taking "all" the arms. Which do you leave? I see some people say take all the semi-autos, but what happens when a psycho with a bolt action wreaks havoc on a crowd from a couple hundred yards away? 

 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

14 minutes ago, B00M said:

Ok.. So how do you fix it?

You make an effort, recognizing that it might not be perfect, and it might need to be changed. But you do...something. What you most definitely don't do is nothing. And you also fight tooth and nail against the lobbying bodies (and politicians beholden to those groups) that, when witnessing another massacre of innocent citizens through gun violence, tell you the only solution is to get more guns more easily into people's hands.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

it's amazing how quickly people have forgotten that assault rifles (call them whatever the fuck you want - you know what I am talking about) have been "legal" for less than a decade. Everyone acts like the boys came back from WW2 with BAR's .and 30-cal's in hand. No, motherfuckers, they left those when they removed their uniforms. They *might* have gotten to take home a .22 they pulled off a dead Nazi. Allowing guns like those on the streets is basically us saying that we're at war with ourselves. Which we are. And which is why we need to get rid of them.

[smuggs 9342]

57 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This is just what I've gathered from my own amateur historianing, which is naturally infused to some degree with my own politics.

My historianing is naturally infused to some degree with honey, rose petal and just a hint of fresh-ground tellicherry pepper.

[Brisketexan 104605]

25 minutes ago, B00M said:

Ok.. So how do you fix it? You mentioned not taking "all" the arms. Which do you leave? I see some people say take all the semi-autos, but what happens when a psycho with a bolt action wreaks havoc on a crowd from a couple hundred yards away? 

 

We already limit weapons that are accessible to the general public.  You can't buy a nuke.   You can't buy a Sidewinder missile.  Even full auto firearms are very difficult to get ahold of -- need special license etc.

So, the idea of "which do you leave" has already been answered to some extent.  The only question is where on the spectrum we end up?  We've obviously long-since chosen something in between "nobody gets anything more than a flintlock rifle" and "everyone can build a fully armed military force, using all possible weapons of war," so your dilemma is a false one.  All we're deciding is where on the spectrum in between that we fall.

Of course, I grew up in a gun owning family and in existing "gun culture" before we went fucking psycho and started buying up ARs left and right and having angry fucksticks play militia hooah tactical git some all day long.  Again, I remember when gun shows transitioned from being something that was attended by outdoorsmen and collectors to something that was attended by toy soldiers doing cosplay and spouting jargon they read in Soldier of Fortune.  I watched it happen in real-time.  It was utterly fucked up.

[Archer 474]

24 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

it's amazing how quickly people have forgotten that assault rifles (call them whatever the fuck you want - you know what I am talking about) have been "legal" for less than a decade. 

I’m not sure what you are saying here but none of it is accurate.

 

If you are referring to the 1994 AWB it expired in 2004 so that is 17 years. However “assault rifles” were never illegal. Certain features were banned during that 10 year time frame but any rifle without them remained legal to manufacture and purchase new from a FFL.  The features that were banned were mainly cosmetic and scary looking and didn’t affect the mechanical function of the rifles. 
 

Colt has been selling AR-15s on the civilian market since 1964  

 

Edited March 29, 2021 by Archer

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

Just now, Archer said:

I’m not sure what you are saying here but none of it is accurate.

 

If you are referring to the 1994 AWB it expired in 2004 so that is 17 years. However “assault rifles” were never illegal. Certain features were banned during that 10 year time frame but any rifle without them remained legal to manufacture and purchase new from a FFL.  The features that were banned were mainly cosmetic and scary looking and didn’t affect the mechanical function of th

TIL

[hayden_horn 11360]

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

We already limit weapons that are accessible to the general public.  You can't buy a nuke.   You can't buy a Sidewinder missile.  Even full auto firearms are very difficult to get ahold of -- need special license etc.

So, the idea of "which do you leave" has already been answered to some extent.  The only question is where on the spectrum we end up?  We've obviously long-since chosen something in between "nobody gets anything more than a flintlock rifle" and "everyone can build a fully armed military force, using all possible weapons of war," so your dilemma is a false one.  All we're deciding is where on the spectrum in between that we fall.

Of course, I grew up in a gun owning family and in existing "gun culture" before we went fucking psycho and started buying up ARs left and right and having angry fucksticks play militia hooah tactical git some all day long.  Again, I remember when gun shows transitioned from being something that was attended by outdoorsmen and collectors to something that was attended by toy soldiers doing cosplay and spouting jargon they read in Soldier of Fortune.  I watched it happen in real-time.  It was utterly fucked up.

stay frosty

[B00M 6280]

4 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

You make an effort, recognizing that it might not be perfect, and it might need to be changed. But you do...something. What you most definitely don't do is nothing. 

Would (1) enforcing a much higher percentage of crimes committed on 4473s (buyers and sellers) and (2) creating a background check system for those private sales that don't utilize an FFL count as "something"?

Sessions allegedly tried to increase the prosecution rate on 4473 "lie and try" from ~0%... but perhaps his DOJ was too distracted with trump's bullshit. The ATF needs to grow considerably to keep up.

These 2 things would surely be expensive (queue the fiscal conservatives), but nothing like a mandatory semi-auto buy back. Neither even remotely infringes on the 2A, but they won't make for splashy headlines. It's bizarre that our shitty politicians can't even agree on seemingly low hanging fruit.

I see the house has passed legislation that extend the time the FBI has to vet those flagged by NICS (H.R.1446). I'm struggling to see the downside there. They also passed legislation requiring a background check for all gun sales (H.R.8). I don't think that can actually be enforced without complete registration. 

Meanwhile Biden is looking into EOs against 3D printed guns and imported firearms. Will be interesting to see the details.

[B00M 6280]

33 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

We already limit weapons that are accessible to the general public.  You can't buy a nuke.   You can't buy a Sidewinder missile.  Even full auto firearms are very difficult to get ahold of -- need special license etc.So, the idea of "which do you leave" has already been answered to some extent.  The only question is where on the spectrum we end up?  We've obviously long-since chosen something in between "nobody gets anything more than a flintlock rifle" and "everyone can build a fully armed military force, using all possible weapons of war," so your dilemma is a false one. 

I don't think it's a false dilemma because unlike missiles, there are probably 200+ million privately owned semi-autos across the US with only around 20 million of those being the modern AR "sporting" rifle.

Automatics, like Tommy guns, were easily able to be taxed effectively to extinction in the 30s because they cost nearly as much as a car, so sales were very low. From what I can find there were only hundreds or maybe thousands in the hands of private citizens (mostly criminals) in the 1930s when the $200 tax ($3000+ today) was imposed. Tax evasion could then be used to enforce compliance.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'd like to see feasible detailed ideas that might make a quick impact rise to the top of the discussion. Is anything interesting trending on Twitter?

[GRHorn 105]

3 hours ago, Lobo said:

Yeah, I GRHorn missed the boat on the first meme.  The most heavily fortified I have ever seen the White House was when they literally put up those giant cement walls and had 10x the armed guards outside than Biden did...and that was under his hero---Trump.  

The assault wagon one is funny though because I remember way too may carpools in that first type of wagon growing up, plus it does kinda look like every rifle I ever handled.  And the assault wagon is just funny looking, looks like the death vehicle from "Animal House" kinda.  However, it could all be tied together really well with Hunting Wagon, Assault Wagon, and 2A Wagon which would be the Family Truckster from "Vacation."  You think you look like a badass gun owner, showing off your constitutional right to bear arms, but in reality you're a fucking tool who can't protect his family in East Saint Louis.  

But what of the 3rd one, Lobo?

[Nicole44 22027]

Pharrell cousin.Virginia Beach shooting Gang stuff. Bull shit.

[DDD Dad 14251]

My historianing is naturally infused to some degree with honey, rose petal and just a hint of fresh-ground tellicherry pepper.

[Bama Chick 28596]

I’ve nothing left to yell about on this topic.

[elfenix 34171]

Goddammit

[Fastbreak 3959]

Thoughts and prayers. It’s all we can apparently do.