You're right, I've never hunted. Don't people hunt with bolt action rifles pretty frequently? People clearly successfully hunted before semi-autos were a thing.
OT: Gun Control Changes
- Thread starter scotchtiger
- Start date
You're right, I've never hunted. Don't people hunt with bolt action rifles pretty frequently? People clearly successfully hunted before semi-autos were a thing.
Let me educate some of you younger folks about the realities of gun control. You folks do understand that the dems have had many, many opportunities over the decades to pass any gun control law they wanted! Remember, the dems passed ObamaCare without a single vote from repubs. They, the dems have had many more years, historically, of owning both houses and having the presidency, than the repubs have. The dems are not going to really attempt to pass gun control when they can actually do it. The only time they raise hell about it, is when they know they don't have the power to do it. It's one their platforms, if you will, when they need to gin up voting support. The reason they don't pass gun control when they're in power, is because they know the VAST majority of people in this country are pro-2nd amendment; members of, or sympathetic to, the NRA, etc. Again, it has to do with votes.
There's no way that would slow down our military.
Just don't understand why anyone needs semi-autos. Not suggesting it would help much in the short term, but maybe 50-75 years from now.
once again people need have to make this all or nothing argument. You can be for the 2nd Amendment but still think that more restrictions should be placed on the sale of firearms. Polling indicates that is how the vast majority of Americans feel. Like most issues, it is difficult to get anything done as the extremes (both right and left) have take over the political process.
Washington never uttered that quote that you circled. The actual quote (taken from his address to the Senate and House on January 8, 1790) is as follows.
“A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.
The proper establishment of the Troops which may be deemed indispensible, will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it, it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the Officers and Soldiers with a due regard to economy.”
I think there is a terminology misunderstanding here and by others in this thread.
There are military style high capacity assault type semi auto rifles like those used by Las Vegas Sandy Hook and Florida shooters
there are hunting rifles that are semi-automatic where the magazine will hold five or six rounds max. Bolt action is probably the most popular style of hunting rifle, but some hunt with semi auto rifles.
probably the majority of hunting shotguns are semi automatic, generally hold six rounds max, but are usually plugged to hold three rounds when used for hunting.
Actually “state of the art” weapons in those days were NOT designed or built for the military nor were they even USED by the regular military. The rifled musket was a civilian invention and riflemen in that time were civilians in military service..predominantly the militias.
You know that shotguns can also be semi automatic as well? Are you suggesting we stop the manufacture of semi auto shotguns?
I'm aware. I know it's not a realistic proposal because our society has a weird gun hangup.
Just in theory... revolvers, bolt-action rifles, and shotguns makes a lot of sense. You could just do pump shotguns if you wanted to eliminate "semi-auto" shotguns just to really simplify everything.
Shotguns are a much better self defense option than a pistol anyway.
I was not making an argument either way. Just explaining why dems have never done anything much with gun control. I think most people who really look into this, realize that all we really need to do is uphold and prosecute the laws we already have on the books. We also need to hold accountable, those who are liable. For instance, in this recent case, this guy had the cops called out on him 39 times in the last few years. He was turned in to the FBI in Jan. 2018 for social media input. The cops and the FBI are squarely and surely to blame here. The FBI didn't even follow their own protocol! I don't hear anyone raising hell about it! Wonder why?
Let's pretend to ignore all of history and every war for just a moment. How do you explain us being in Afghanistan for 17 years? Is that something you would call a "slow down of our military"?
As long as there are hard men, armed and willing to defend their own personal property, the Constitution and the basic idea of America, it will not matter what weapons, bombs, or aircraft the United States military brings to the fight.
How about we just significantly increase security for the schools now, then figure out the gun shit once that is in place? I mean if we just care about the safety of the kids and not pushing agendas that is where this should start, right? No laws that affect a constitutional right would be involved with this, so you'd think it's something the politicians could all get together on quickly.
While there are some things that need to be done to make it more difficult to get a gun, this should've been stopped by current laws and protocols, but the FBI and local Law Enforcement dropped the damn ball. They should be the ones getting hammered in the media right now, not the NRA, or Trump, or guns.
While there are some things that need to be done to make it more difficult to get a gun, this should've been stopped by current laws and protocols, but the FBI and local Law Enforcement dropped the damn ball. They should be the ones getting hammered in the media right now, not the NRA, or Trump, or guns.
When I get home I'll post all of my degrees.
Over 50% of fortune 500 companies are run by men who have served.
This excuse for you two is self-serving to distract from your cowardice.
My post did not post correctly, I added this statement
This statement is not based on facts. Yes a small percentage serve but they are not joining the military because they don’t have any other options.
I graduated Clemson with a degree in Electrical Engineering. I had many options but chose to serve as an officer in the USAF.
There is a reason fortune 500 companies love to hire from the military.
The kid hadn't committed a crime. I know the FBI failed to follow up but what were they going to do even if they had followed up? You can't prevent someone who isn't a criminal from purchasing a gun. Were they just going to tail him for some unspecified period of time?
You get it.
I don't like to bring up my military experience but when little weirdos get on a message board and start talking like they know something about the military, military weapons or financial success, I am forced to.
Apologize for the confusion.
Don't disagree with you that the cops/FBI should have arrested the shooter based on the tips/social media threats. But history of mental instability and social media threats did not stop the sale of an assault rifle to this person.
if the waiting period were longer (week or weeks, not days) and the background check more robust, then maybe the sale of the assault rifle or any firearm to this individual could have been prevented.
Most companies check the social media profile of job applicants as part of the interview/hiring process. Clemson checks the social media profiles of perspective football recruits. We are allowing legal purchase of firearms with only a cursory background check. That needs to change.
Ok.
I think that is unreasonable and has no hope of coming to fruition, but I respect your opinion.
Now.....can you tell my why you think I should not be allowed to purchase and own a semi automatic shotgun or rifle?
He made specific threats according to his former classmates of killing people. He made threats online to shoot up the school. Cops had been called to his house for many offenses and his host family said he'd threatened people with guns with guns before.
Perhaps FBI or local Law Enforcement looking into this further would haven connected the dots to see he should be in a mental institute and not be allowed to have guns. Saying it wouldn't have done anything makes no sense. It would've done way more than banning guns. If you Baker Act someone and they are charged or admitted to an institute as a result of the eval, they don't get their guns back. I think they would've probably learned a few things about how crazy this dude was upon examination.
This thread is the perfect example of how a sensible, productive discussion can get turned into a partisan pissing match by a handful of the posters on this board. Why can’t some of us just accept that everyone doesn’t share our beliefs without becoming outraged by it? It is a sad state of affairs when you have to preemptively disclaim any right or left leaning beliefs to have any credibility in a discussion such as this.
I hear what you're saying, but the ultimate goal is/should be how do we protect school children. even if this guy could not buy the AR legally, your argument has to assume that he could not get access to a weapon by any other means. We already know that the strictest of gun laws do not prevent bad people from getting guns. See Chicago. So, my take is simply this. Lets just stick to making the kids as safe as possible. We know that these crazies don't attack places where there is equal firepower. They never shoot up a police station. They generally attack places where they know law abiding citizens will not be shooting back. I would give all the kids an ID card that has to swipe to get in the building, have a couple of uniformed, armed, officers on site, and 3-4 trained, concealed carriers in the building. Again, this guy was turned in because of his social media profile and the FBI and local law enforcement dropped the ball, but we're somehow talking mostly about what types of guns should be banned, etc, (in the media), instaead of really looking at where the breakdown occurred in the process and what needs to happen to make kids safe at school.
Sweet Christ you are easily the least self aware person on this board. Even for the internet these are some of the lamest brags I’ve ever seen. I wish I had saved some of your prior posts because you literally talk about your military service in virtually every one and have at various points bragged about your income, how “hot” your wife is, and how many “friends” you have (at least if you’re gonna lie make it somewhat believable).
I'm just playing devil's advocate, but I think sometimes you make sacrifices for the betterment of society. It's probably silly that you have to drive 70mph down I-95 if there's no traffic. Maybe it's silly that 18 year olds can't drink a beer or people can't smoke a little pot in moderation in certain states. But, I guess you try to see the bigger picture. So you enjoy shooting bolt-action rifles instead of semi-auto rifles because you think we're safer for it.
Again, just playing the other side.
I’m not for banning any rifles or shotguns, only high capacity mags and bump stocks. But I agree with your premise. I grew up in rural SC, and all of my role models were avid fishermen and hunters. I was taught to respect guns and view them for what they are: a useful but dangerous tool. I own a large number of shotguns and rifles.
I’m not opposed to AR’s in theory, but whenever I hear anyone touting their utility as a hunting firearm, I think of what those men taught me. Growing up, if someone showed up for a hunt with an AR, it would have raised some eyebrows, if not ridicule, amongst them. Let’s be real: is owning an AR really what the framers intended to protect when they wrote the 2nd? Or are they just a masculine status symbol, beyond the contemplation of what the founding fathers would have seen as a utilitarian benefit to our society? Either way, I’m opposed to making them illegal. I just find issue with some of the arguments against making them illegal.
I don’t understand this logic of “we can’t have rules because criminals will ignore them, but decent citizens will abide by them.” You could apply this to many of the laws on the books, but you don’t hear of any legislators trying to overturn our statutory codes based on this rationale. It seems like there has to be a more logically sound argument than the “yeah but” that I keep seeing.
They're too useful for killing many innocent people. You can still protect yourself or hunt fine with a non semi-automatic weapon (again, I'm not an expert).
I'll concede that it's difficult to go on a killing spree with a shotgun and I wouldn't lose any sleep over them remaining legal. I'm just also saying that a pump action fulfills all the legitimate needs that I can think of off hand.
Afghans have done a pretty good job
Never fought in Afghanistan then huh?
I'm almost 100% sure your parents are/were professors. No way your level of brainwashing comes from just 4 years of college.
To me it's very simple. Modern liberalism is an unfortunate byproduct of civilization. The fact that our lives are not largely devoted to hunting and gathering food and fighting off marauders who would rape, enslave, and/or kill us, allows a large segment of our society to forget that this is the natural state of man. You didn’t have liberals in the Dark Ages because a liberal would last about ten seconds, expiring with a spear through his face after telling the local warlord that he disapproved “of this patriarchal, phallocentric, cisnormative power structure.”
Now, of course a substantial number of Americans pay tribute to humanity’s past by understanding human nature and often by preparing to confront the forces of chaos. These people are conservatives. We conservatives expect problems, and expect that we will have to solve them ourselves. We generally know how to hunt, to gather food, and we have guns and know how to use them. And we understand that society always – always – teeters on the edge of falling apart.
Liberals don’t – in fact, they actively reject the notion because to accept it would require a complete rethink of their assumptions and premises. Liberals don't actually want to defeat evil. They would rather go after civil war statues, "systematic" inequities, wall street or the institutions that defeat evil: the military, local law enforcement and the conceal carry members of our society.
I want crazy people who are intent on killing innocent people, dead. That means members of our society need to be armed. Maybe not you, but someone needs to be in a position to kill bad people.
I think he is trying to say that the American citizenry, armed with weapons that are legal for Americans to own today, would have a hard time fighting off the armed forces. Don't want to speak for someone else, but that is my impression.
Everyone knows that Afghani irregular forces and the Taliban, ISIS/ISIL, etc. have/had access to a wide array of military arms that US citizens could never own or obtain. This is the very definition of a straw man argument and is not conducive to the discussion.
Regardless, interpreting the 2nd Amendment as only being valid as a means to arm the "militia" is a useless exercise, as SCOTUS has already interpreted it to give a qualified right for citizens to own firearms for self defense, regardless of what anyone thinks the militia is. Scalia stated that for the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment to synch with modern technology, it is fair for the government to prohibit weapons found to be "dangerous and unusual." So the key question that is germane to today's issue is whether an AR-15 falls into this category, not if it would be effective in fighting off US armed forces.
But since the topic was brought up, I would argue that in modern times, the national guards of the states are the closest analogs to the revolutionary period militia, and the only fighting force capable of attempting to defend US citizens from an attack by federal military.
Just to play devil's advocate with this argument a bit more, let's say the US federal armed forces do one day decide to turn on the citizenry and attack us for some reason. Do you think they (they being federal forces) would abide by international humanitarian law, the Geneva Conventions, or the Hague Conventions, as they do in today's conflicts? I tend to think they would not. I think any international norms of law would be out the window in a situation such as this. An American citizenry armed with conventional semi-automatic weapons, including ARs, is highly unlikely to defend themselves from the sorts of attacks our armed forces could inflict on them if the gloves were off. In any matter, this sort of argument/discussion is completely speculative and has zero likelihood of arising under our Constitution in modern times. It's a distracting and inconsequential discussion.
soooo you're disappointed that humanity has evolved, basically? that's what this boils down to? mixed in with an apocalyptic fever dream?
i'd say it's pretty wonderful that people who have different qualities other than simply being able to hunt and gather (lol at you even bringing this up) are able to thrive today because of society's advances. bill gates would probably fair pretty terribly in the "dark ages" but he's one of the sole reasons we're even able to have this pissing match. if you really wanna abide by that sort of crazy thinking, maybe you should go live in a cabin, kacznyski style and live off the land. sounds like you'd be more well-suited for that. oh, and you should definitely get off the internet.
Are you stockpiling flamethrowers, RPGs, and dirty bombs for this post apoplectic struggle against the forces of evil? Thank you for protecting us weak libtards, Rambo!
I know you are angry, but this is not a good look for you. Castigating an entire segment of the population because they don't share your political beliefs is frankly antithetical to democracy and our Constitution. I'm not specifically attacking you on your stance, as people on both sides of the political spectrum have a tendency to do this when angered, but it isn't beneficial to your arguments, coming from someone with no skin in the game. I agree with some of what you are saying, especially the ideas that have a basis in self reliance. But man, the personal attacks, gross generalizations, and outrage do little to advance your cause. Just trying to help you out and bring these discussions back to a more moderate position.
Interesting points, not sold on the arguement. But interesting none the less. Furthermore, insuregencies are dangerous and fluid things. But that is an arguement for another day.
Um, that's unconstitutional in of itself. Maybe for those wanting to own a gun or own, not that it would not stop a psychotic from getting a gun illegally.
Scary how people are giving up their rights and want to give up others rights over the guise of safety.
Lol. Arm all students with mace & tazers but bring back prayer.....some of y'all are on full blown drugs. Really, what the fvck are you snorting.
I do not believe any of what he did before hand could have gotten him committed. He did make comments but I imagine there is a LOT of that every week. The FBI can't institutionalize all (or perhaps any) of those people.
