More Thoughts & Prayers

[Jason]

1 hour ago, Tank said:

i like what dick's and walmart are doing, but i wonder how legal it is to do this. if a 19 year old walks in and wants to buy a particular gun, can the store rightfully deny him the ability to purchase one when federal law says he can?

 it’s not like they are baking cakes 

[Jason]

What if some 18 year old “adult” wants to go deer hunting this fall? 

[Adam]

Guessing the left will scream "free market" at this like the twats that they are.

[Adam]

34 minutes ago, Jason said:

What if some 18 year old “adult” wants to go deer hunting this fall? 

He'll have to go to Country Bill's Jerky & Ammo off the interstate. 

[Tank]

1 hour ago, mtangelsfan said:

I expect that there will be a lawsuit regarding this.

yeah, this will be an interesting one to watch. probably ends up in SCOTUS at some point in time.

[Mark68]

21 hours ago, Jason said:

You do realize the VA tech shooter killed over 30 with a 9mm and .22 caliber handguns. Ban all semi autos? So just legislates gun’s away?

You realize that is one exception to the general theme, which is that semi-autos have been responsible for the majority of mass murders over the last two decades?

[floplag]

3 hours ago, RallyMo said:

It's not "using the death of innocents" that you stated earlier. You were basically stating that they were allowing the deaths of innocents to advance an agenda. That's not the same.

You're splitting hairs at this point, but its fine.  Im not trying to convince anyone of anything just sharing something i read expecting open minds... my bad.  

[tennischmp]

21 hours ago, Jason said:

You do realize the VA tech shooter killed over 30 with a 9mm and .22 caliber handguns. Ban all semi autos? So just legislates gun’s away?

And if he used an AK he would have killed 60

[tennischmp]

7 hours ago, floplag said:

A theory that has supporting circumstantial evidence.    Not exactly tin foil territory.  
To be clear though I'm not suggesting they made this person do what he did, I'm suggesting they didn't act when they should have to gain politically. 
Assuming the reports that officer(s) were on scene, there are only 2 plausible explanations as to why they didnt act, they were cowards or they were ordered not to. 

Maybe they weren't comfortable running in there with their hand guns looking for the maniac with an AK-15 without a plan or backup? Even in Vegas they waited for SWAT before storming the guys hotel room and he was confined to a smaller area than this guy was.

[Jason]

2 hours ago, tennischmp said:

And if he used an AK he would have killed 60

Proof??

[Jason]

2 hours ago, Mark68 said:

You realize that is one exception to the general theme, which is that semi-autos have been responsible for the majority of mass murders over the last two decades?

This is where we are so different in our world view. Personally, I think the asshole that held the gun, pointed it at someone and pulled the trigger is responsible for the murders. I think this is why we will never agree on this issue. There are some things that the hardcore gun owners need to open their eyes to and accept changes that may help reduce certain people from obtaining weapons. Everything you've suggested in your posts have been so extreme. 

[Jason]

2 hours ago, tennischmp said:

Maybe they weren't comfortable running in there with their hand guns looking for the maniac with an AK-15 without a plan or backup? Even in Vegas they waited for SWAT before storming the guys hotel room and he was confined to a smaller area than this guy was.

I have numerous friends that are cops and each one told me that there is no way in hell they would have waited. Policy is irrelevant at that point. Preservation of life supersedes everything else. 

[tennischmp]

19 minutes ago, Jason said:

Proof??

Umm common sense? More rounds per minute with greater velocity/energy per round

[Jason]

53 minutes ago, tennischmp said:

Umm common sense? More rounds per minute with greater velocity/energy per round

What if his gun had jammed? The Parkland shooter's did. What if scenarios do not make good evidence 

[tennischmp]

2 hours ago, Jason said:

What if his gun had jammed? The Parkland shooter's did. What if scenarios do not make good evidence 

All I'm saying is that there will be more carnage with a AK vs a handgun. It's common sense to me and there is probably plenty of data to support my claim. 

[Mark68]

On ‎3‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 7:38 PM, Jason said:

This is where we are so different in our world view. Personally, I think the asshole that held the gun, pointed it at someone and pulled the trigger is responsible for the murders. I think this is why we will never agree on this issue. There are some things that the hardcore gun owners need to open their eyes to and accept changes that may help reduce certain people from obtaining weapons. Everything you've suggested in your posts have been so extreme. 

If the asshole couldn't just go into any gun shop or sporting goods store and purchase a gun that has the ability to shoot so many rounds so quickly, then there wouldn't be 17 dead people in Parkland. 

And as for everything I've suggested being extreme...if you think that requiring background checks on all purchases, licensing, and insurance on all guns is extreme, then maybe it's YOU who are extreme. There have been numerous polls of NRA members showing a majority support such measures.

At what point does your right to own whatever firearm you wish supersede the right of the victims to not be shot?

In my view, that point is nonexistent. I don't think that makes me extreme. I believe that makes me human.

[arch stanton]

It’s because you choose to concentrate solely on the delivery system. As long as the bitterness and anger and mental instability exist that would motivate someone to murder high school students then taking weapons away from people who have no intention of committing mass murder is just chasing your own tail. Evil and anger aren’t going away with the increasing population. They’re getting more intense and more common. Maybe it’s time to quit gathering defenseless children into unprotected holding pens then pretending that removing one weapon that scares you personally is a solution 

[Blarg]

We should have fewer people so the 0.0002% of whacked out assholes isn't such a large number. 

[floplag]

6 hours ago, Mark68 said:

If the asshole couldn't just go into any gun shop or sporting goods store and purchase a gun that has the ability to shoot so many rounds so quickly, then there wouldn't be 17 dead people in Parkland. 

And as for everything I've suggested being extreme...if you think that requiring background checks on all purchases, licensing, and insurance on all guns is extreme, then maybe it's YOU who are extreme. There have been numerous polls of NRA members showing a majority support such measures.

At what point does your right to own whatever firearm you wish supersede the right of the victims to not be shot?

In my view, that point is nonexistent. I don't think that makes me extreme. I believe that makes me human.

 Why is this such an absolute to you, as if there is no other way a person could have killed those people?  If he couldn't get a gun maybe he builds a bomb and its twice as many dead.  

The person was sick, he made a decision to break our most sacred laws and kill... how is that something so easily ignored and the gun the only thing so many care about?

As for the moral high ground humanity stuff... thats self justification, not fact.  

[Glen]

On 3/1/2018 at 7:45 PM, Jason said:

What if his gun had jammed? The Parkland shooter's did. What if scenarios do not make good evidence 

So we should stop using "what if" scenarios involving a good guy with a gun, right?

[Jason]

8 minutes ago, Glen said:

So we should stop using "what if" scenarios involving a good guy with a gun, right?

Yes, there’s no point in that argument since we already have the right to own firearms for self defense 

[floplag]

45 minutes ago, Glen said:

So we should stop using "what if" scenarios involving a good guy with a gun, right?

Isnt that what some are proposing to do in denying people without criminal history rights?   Just sayin  

[RallyMo]

Isn't this all more than likely both a people and guns problem rather than just one of them? Given that, shouldn't this be addressed on multiple fronts? Furthermore, doesn't it make anybody that insists on focusing on one side only a complete dunderhead?

[Jason]

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20170414/news/170419171/

No need for new laws or regulations if nobody is going to be held accountable. 

[Jason]