Agnostic.com

29 25

I have to do this again, just because it is weighing on my mind after a conversation I had a bit earlier with one of the world's cognitively challenged.

I would be far more sympathetic with the gun nuts (bear in mind Gramps was a gunsmith, I was occupied after school sorting spent brass in the basement gun range, had my first rifle at age 8, I'm with military experience) if they would be a bit more reasonable about type.

I have yet to figure out the justification for weapons that can be broken down to fit in a briefcase that are fitted with 30/60/100 round magazines. If they can explain rationally why weapons with high rate of fire and extended magazines are necessary for hunting, target shooting, or home protection, then great.

For the hunters, the trick is to bring down your game with a single, clean shot. Failing that, then two. The reason is simple, you're going to eat the damned thing, but not if it's torn to shreds. Why a 30 round clip at 80 rounds per minute?

If someone breaks into your home while you are there, one shot into the ceiling will more than likely send him/them packing. Ever heard a high powered . 30 cal go off in a closed room? You and he/they will be deaf for at least a couple of hours, unless you sleep with your earplugs in.

By the way, within the confines of the average home, a long weapon is a bit awkward and the range involved makes it very hard to miss with a simple revolver with even a 4" barrel.

Today, fighting back against a tyrannical government is a ludicrous proposition, unless you have a stockpile of the latest in military weaponry in your doomsday bunker.

You only have one semi defensible argument and that is that you like guns. Again, don't get me wrong. I'm not all wild-eyed, frothing at the mouth against guns, I just have a problem with the types in question because I can find no reasonable, logical, rational reason for many of them beyond their destructive capacity.

evidentialist 8 Mar 6

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

29 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

11

because American gun rights are about overthrowing the government. That means the guns need to challenge nuclear missles, aircraft carriers and the secret space based ion cannon. soooooo.....

If it is about ovcerthrowing the government, why hasn't anyone shot the idiot in the WH. While he is golfing, for example? That was the framers intent, but is not the reality now.

@Spinliesel Elementary my dear, The idiot at 1600 has up till now supported gun rights. Things could get interesting if he proposes a blanket ban a la Australia...

I agree...how could a civilian militia hope to best the most powerful military in the world? I guess we will have to ask the Viet Cong/North Vietnamese and the Afghans.

@Spinliesel Assassinating the POTUS is an act of treason and nobody really cares that much as to who is in office right now. Assassinating your leaders does not inspire confidence in the allys of said leaders. Regicide or any political assassination is always a terrible first action for many reasons. WWI and WWII are examples of how assassinating a leader can be disasterous. A bloody revolution is likely going to create a massive power vacuum which is likely to give rise to many more. Read the Art of War sometime, it's a fascinating look into the mind of one of histories greatest generals and philosophers.

@jayneonacobb true, but err, he's Donald Trump

10

Spot on mate, I agree with with everything you said. Ex military also, not US mil, I just don't see the need for civilians to use military grade weapons.

9

I don't argue anymore with those who are still advocating for their right to own assault rifles. If dead children haven't changed their minds evidently nothing will. Besides, they are in the minority. I argue to get money out of politics so politicians will represent the will of the people, not their big money donors - the NRA in this case.

You want the government to take guns from people and dictate the lives of the minorities you dislike... I read that some where before. Where was it? Oh yeah! Mein kampfh. -_-

@jayneonacobb yah I'm strange that way. Just like I don't want the minority of people who think it is ok to have sex with children to be able to do so.

@Rudy1962 except that we know rape, especially child rape is objectively wrong. We know that responsible gun ownership is objectively good. That is a false comparison used for shock value and as such not a valid response. It just shows how baseless your position is, resorting to pure propaganda and exploitation of victims is a bad platform.

@jayneonacobb we know the majority of the recent mass shootings have been done with assault rifles. We know they can kill more people in a quicker amount of time. We know human life takes precedence over ones right to keep assault rifles. We know when the second amendment was written such rifles did not exist.

@Rudy1962 wow, this tired argument. First of all there is no such thing as an "assault rifle." You're debating one of the best gunsmiths in the state about guns and gun law. It is litterally my job and a requirement to know more about this than you. I'm a verified expert on guns and gun laws, so get your facts straight. Recent, meaning the last three, one of which was ended by an armed citizen with an AR15. It is my right to keep and bear arms in order for me to maintain my safety and that of the country If need be.

The founding fathers knew about better weapons than muskets. The pepper box, and the the puckle gun predated the revolutionary war. They were being upgraded all the time. Some of the founding fathers armed a private ship with heavy artillery for the time. You really think the founding fathers were so stupid that they couldn't invision better weapons? That's insane. I can conceive of some pretty crazy weapons, light sabers, for example.

@jayneonacobb Shooting up a bunch of children is also unacceptable so you can own a fucking gun.

8

This is the point of view of the majority of reasonable people if you ask me

What is unreasonable about owning weapons appropriate to the time in which you live? I own a few real swords, not cheap wall hangers, they're much more preferable to a knife in close quarters, but I'd rather have a bow and be further away. Better yet, I'd rather have an AR15 instead of a pistol against a guy with an AR15.

The amount of times guns kill verses the amount out times guns save lives or stop crimes is heavily weighted towards the latter. The CDC may not be able to study gun violence, but they have studied gun use in defense. Their numbers and the FBI's numbers are between 500,000 to 3 million times a year that guns are used for defense in the US. That's far more than the average 12,000 gun related deaths a year, most of which are suicide.

80% of all gun crime is committed with hand guns. Of the remaining 20% less than 20% are committed with semiautomatic rifles like the AR15 or other poorly dubbed "assault rifles." I sourced this information from politifacts, the CDC and the FBI.

@jayneonacobb all points of view are in the original post you may want to read it again

@SimonMorgan1 what I'm saying is that the point of view that gun control advocates have is demonstrably false when compared to the facts.

@jayneonacobb 1 death is to many. Plus you live in a country where your children go through metal detectors to get to class . That is just crazy and to think otherwise is not rational

@SimonMorgan1 It's a fact that almost every mass shooting in American history has been done in gun free zones. Many of these atrocities are committed at schools. The metal detectors didn't stop them, the gun free zone sign outside didn't stop them. The laws didn't stop them. You can't ban guns here, not without a war, and I doubt the anti gun side would win. Gun control fails completely, Chicago is a murder capital here and it has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country.

@jayneonacobb You might want to check your "facts" again. Not only are your self defense numbers wrong, but so are your 12,000 gun related deaths per year. You're off by at least 20,000. This article cites the CDC and FBI numbers, and you are wrong.

[washingtonpost.com]

@Piece2YourPuzzle about 12,000 Gun murders on average over the last ten years. The Washington post is not a reliable source. The CDC and the FBI are reliable. Go to the source of the information, not the biased interpretation.

@jayneonacobb This is EXACTLY what you said above: "That's far more than the average 12,000 gun related deaths a year, most of which are suicide." You didn't say gun murders. You said gun related deaths. Gun related deaths equals murder (12,000+) AND suicides (20,000+). Are you being deliberately obtuse? The Washington Post CITED THE CDC AND FBI numbers and gave links to their websites WITH THE NUMBERS! That's what a professional news organization does, they cite their sources. Responsible and honest people also do this.

8

Excellent post. Agree completely. And I love that guy! Currently plastering these videos on several FB pages! Lets piss off people early today! Thanks for the "ammo"...

You really think it wise to piss off people who you consider to be unstable and armed? I'm just pointing out that if you do, you're an idiot, and if not you aren't in any danger and you just proved that most gun owners are responsible with them.

@jayneonacobb
So, I've read many of your posts since joining and have decided you're pretty arrogant for no good reason. You assume much that was not said and I really don't appreciate your "just in case" insult. Perhaps you need to practice your listening skills and practice debating without resorting to insults.

@Freespirit64 it isn't an insult, it's a valid argument. Why poke a bear? I just don't think you gun control people have a clue about what you're talking about. You may be confusing expertise with arrogance. I am an expert in the field of firearms. You're basically trying to argue with your doctor about whether or not you're sick. If I come off as arrogant I think it's you who is immature. You're the one excited about "pissing people off."

7

Thanks for posting this. After the latest school shooting, you would expect some talk about a way to make guns safer and less deadly, but all the talk I hear is how guns don't kill, how unamerican it is to suggest anything to do with gun control.

"Make guns safer and less deadly." Are you aware of what a weapon is? Guns are inanimate objects and as such have no agency. There was a guy in China who killed 17 people and injured over 30 others with a kitchen knife. Most "mass shootings" in America don't result in death and include three or more people and one weapon, including bb guns. By those terms I've been in a few dozen mass shootings as a kid. Mostly a jerk neighborhood kid that shot people with a red Ryder bb gun.

The cdc and FBI both reported that guns are used between 500,000 and 3 million times a year to stop crimes or save lives.

Cars have generally gotten safer. This is basically due to their improved design. Crumple zones etc.

To say that there is no technology to make guns safer I think is short sighted.

Not even all guns sold have safeties, which is a very basic technology. Accidental gun deaths are more common than mass gun shootings. Especially in this capacity gun technology has barely moved.
Actually it has moved, but the technology is not adopted and is actively suppressed:

[google.com]

@jayneonacobb

@Myah more safeties don't make guns safer, they just add more parts, cost and reduce response time. I know this for a fact, I have a degree in this field. Cars are not designed to kill. They are designed to quickly and safely transport people. It is a false comparison, guns vs. Cars. They have two completely seperate functions. Making guns safer means using better materials and better engineering to simplify the function as much as possible.

@jayneonacobb
You have a degree in gun safety?
These are some of the most uninformed comments I've seen on weapons. No way to make them safer? Then they should be outlawed. When Guns are getting so plentiful that your kids can't go to school without getting shot, it's ridiculous.

Safeties prevent guns from going off when you drop them. The inertia of the trigger can cause the gun to shoot when you drop it. I believe this is actually the main purpose of a safety.

Grip safeties are effective at preventing small children from accidentally shooting themselves because their hands are often too small to fit around the gun handle as well as pulling the trigger.

I’d be interested in a source for your claim that safeties don’t make the gun safer. I am sure you can easily cite a source since you apparently have a degree in guns.

@jayneonacobb

You don’t even need to look at smart guns that only fire for the owner to see safety technology (which you never addressed in my previous post, nor addressed the fact that the technology was actively suppressed)

There is a lot of older technology that is just not used. What is it not used? If there are safety features why are they not required through regulations? There is no common sense argument not to implement safety features in every new manufactured gun.
Chamber indicators
Magazine release safeties
Grip safeties
Firing pin blocks

[google.com]

@jayneonacobb

6

You are spot on my friend. I do happen to have a m4 but it’s simply my toy. I enjoy the going to the range and shooting it and that’s that. I work in the oil fields elf and the conversation comes up annnnd of course I have to jump in and remind em that the government has c130’s that can take a human out from a couple miles above. The leadership of the nra keeps pumping money into government to keep the sales going. This country is been rambofied and that makes for a perfect market.

Guerilla warfare has been extremely effective in the past and remains so today. How do you think we lost the Vietnam war?

You have an "M4", the three shot burst-capable, current U.S. Military issue? I don't think so. What you likely have is a look-alike semi-auto, not an "M4"...unless you did the requirements, found a Class 3 dealer, paid the $200 transfer tax.

And we’re still involved in at least 8 conflicts nowadays.@jayneonacobb

No I got a regular civilian 556 with single shot capability, which I prefer. Thanks for the explanation by the way.@dahermit

@Cwag515 yes, we are, those people are also using guerilla warfare tactics and they have dragged this out for decades. The war on terror is almost old enough to vote because of these tactics.

That shit went long enough in central and South America. Main reason why we have such an emigration issue from the south. Never learn.@jayneonacobb

@Cwag515 my point is the c130 isn't doing much right now for our current war efforts that would ever be used this side of the boarders. Guerilla tactics can stop a military, they have stopped the US military. Your argument about better weapons is invalid. Especially considering most US soldiers would refuse to fight the people.

@jayneonacobb Because in Vietnam the terrain is much different than in America, and it was a foreign land. Good luck trying to take out a drone or tank or fighter jet with a slingshot. Many people hiding in mountains, underground tunnels, jungles, and rice paddy fields in Wisconsin?

To be straight with you I don’t think it’s gonna happen. But who are we kidding the take down would be systematic and we would give em a fight but not a chance on our side. By the way they’re using fear tactics to sell guns. Just like the one we been talking bout.@jayneonacobb

5

well, your right and its a lot better for the animal if you kill it clean as respect for nature is important even in death. if your that crap a shot you shouldnt be hunting.

4

You're 100% correct IMO. The step-dad I grew up with was ex-army and very much a gun nut. I've been shooting since I was 6 and I have 3 shotguns within 20 feet of me as I type this and no other type of gun. With my shotguns I can hunt, defend, and have fun. I've never understood the gun nut mentality. I find it borne of paranoia and further insecurity.

Yes, the founding fathers must have been paranoid. Actually providing insurance against "unforeseen" future possible threats...like a Democracy (ours), being converted to a totalitarian government like what is happening in Turkey today (Greece and Roman in history). All democratic governments have eventually been replaced with totalitarian/authoritarian entities...or have you not been paying attention to what is happing in Washington?

I understand your consternation. But unless we're prepared to give our citizens weapons of mass destruction the argument is too outdated to be of any use. namaste

@kauva The fact that the Vietnamese and the Afghans are and have defeated us, your argument is not valid.

sure. theyre gonna have such a problem about the terrain of our backyard. don't try to tell me vietnam.

3

Allow me to answer your question once and for all...some of us gun owners prefer having a weapon such as an AR-15 simply because those in positions of power in this country have them, and when citizens have access to similar arms that the government military have, tyranny gets kept in control. Throughout history there have been enough examples of when the people do not have access to at least some of the same kinds of weapons that their government has, that said government could take them over. With gun owners such as myself, that would not be easy for our government to ever do such a thing. For the record, I respect the fact that you stated this question in a civil manner and gave a reasonable chance for the other side to explain, and I've long felt that if you do not wish to own such firearms then that is your choice as a free citizen, just don't tell other free citizens why they should not own certain types of guns is all. I also find it odd that hardly any gun control advocates ever are concerned about our police forces having access to military style weaponry, that surely is a concern as well. I personally knew of two gentlemen who (with some inside help) went to military bases and stole weapons to sell on the black market. If you want citizens to give up their AR's etc, then the same should go for the police, but I think you know as well as I know that's not going to happen none too soon. I hope that answered your query, and I implore you to consider what I said very carefully. Again, thank you for asking your question in a non-judgmental way, that much is appreciated.

@SpikeTalon -- Using that reasoning, my posit would hold true and I should be able under the law to have, maintain, and display tactical nukes in my backyard. It would say that my ICBM silo, stockpile of Claymores, 50k rounds of .50 caliber AP to feed my twin mount M2A1, and whatever else I deem necessary to protect myself from a runaway central government are also protected under the 2nd Amendment. I'm sorry, my friend, but the argument does not stand up to scrutiny.

The fact that the government will not allow me, currently a private citizen, to possess tactical nukes and delivery systems can equally under the law determine any other type to be outside the "rights" of a citizen of this country without affecting the 2nd Amendment in any way. Type has long been under the jurisdiction of the government.

I am still waiting for a rational argument that supports the possession of such weapons types and their magazine capacities. The argument assumes too much and explains too little.

@evidentialist What I mentioned above is rational, and if you had studied history you would know that there have been tyrannical governments in the past that first either seriously diminished or totally eradicated the citizen's right to bear arms before taking them over. By right any citizen in this country should be allowed to own nukes/heavy weapons etc. People like you claim our arguments do not hold up to scrutiny, but your point on that example is rather baseless, because nukes and similar weapons have a high cost that the average citizen cannot afford, so that's not a matter of laws getting in the way of ownership there. Can you afford even one nuke? I'd think not, but if you own a business and happen to be in the business of manufacturing nukes, then you would own them. See where I'm going with this? You claim my argument does not hold up to scrutiny, but the example you provided is no better and actually more absurd. Regarding high capacity mags- one must take into consideration missed shots and if there be multiple offenders present, and with that in mind 30 round mags are not that unreasonable. A 3 or 4 round shotgun might not cut it in all situations, think about that. Ultimately, I think the root of this issue lies in the fact that certain types of weapons owned by private citizens makes you uncomfortable, and while I can somewhat understand how you feel on that the thing is these types of weapons do exist now and are not going away anytime soon, that my friend is reality, the reality that we all live in like it or not. Liberty is not free and there's no telling when someone will commit a violent act, but I do know that gun control measures do not work as criminals do not obey the laws, and would purchase arms/accessories on the black market if necessary. Do you get that now? Banning high capacity mags and bumpstocks will not solve our problems, because simply banning them will not make every one of them vanish. Lastly, in a free country one should be able to own whatever he/she wants provided it was bought for or earned, what I own is no one else's business, live and let live I say. I am still waiting for someone to prove to me that banning certain things will make them magically go away, and I for one do not believe in magic. Certain states for the longest time now have banned drugs...that worked out real well now, didn't it?

@evidentialist Seriously.... tactical nukes against it's own country... are you fucking mental??? How do you expect anyone to take you seriously saying stupid shit like that? That aside, a- No soldier in their right mind will ever turn their weapon on their own civilian population. Theirs a code of ethics they follow, and will disobey their commanding officer that tells them to do so. I graduated from a military academy and have many friends that went on to make carriers in the military, and l assure you, they would never turn a weapon on us citizens. [warontherocks.com] b- By using your logic, people shouldn't be able to buy cars that can go faster than 70 mph, buy personal jets, etc... c- Not having to re-load a ten round mag every two minutes while trying to enjoy an afternoon at the shooting range makes ones having 30, 50, 100 round capability quite understandable.

@Captain_Feelgood -- North and South, brother against brother, citizen against citizen, father against son in the bloodiest conflict in history based upon ideological differences.

A young pilot says, "But, Sir, that's damned close to that vil."

The response is: "Put your ordnance on the numbers. We'll figure it out later."

Refusing to follow orders is a serious offense under any circumstances and the chain of command serves as a buffer going up and as a hammer coming down. Now, I grant you that there would be some who would not fire on fellow citizens, but I guarantee you there would be enough who would to make any uprising backed by AR 15s a fool's errand.

As for my comments about tactical nukes in my backyard and other nonsense, yes, they were idiotic and they were intended to be idiotic, specifically to underscore the futility of the argument presented.

I live in a small town of 42,000 people. If every able-bodied man, woman, and child who knew the difference between the muzzle and the butt were issued an AR 15, what would be left of our defending force after a single F-18 strike? We would be decimated, my friend. There would be survivors, of course. Most of them would not want to face that again. That would be the result if only one member of this state's ANG followed his/her orders, and anyone in the military who had the balls to turn their weapons against the government would find themselves in a deep state of hurt.

The military does not seek to instill altruism in its members.

3

I've been called "libtard" by conservatives because I support reasonable regulations, and "gun nut" and "cognitively challenged" your ilk because I own guns legally.

I get that you feel you're preaching to the choir here (isn't that an ironic phrase?) but when you argue your case by degrading others, you'll never convince anyone.

Referring to law-abiding gun owners as "gun nuts," ammosexuals," or any other insult you can come up with does nothing to further understanding or dialogue on the subject.

As to any opinion you present regarding what's appropriate for hunting, self-defense, or sport, it's only opinion. For the most part, I can respect your views as presented, but shooting a gun through the ceiling as a warning would be pretty stupid.

JimG Level 8 Mar 6, 2018

@JimG -- I've lived with firearms most of my life, but I'm not a gun nut. You don't know my ilk, obviously. When I say "gun nut", the gun nuts know who I'm talking about and if you are not a gun nut, you know I'm not talking about you.

Now, for firing a round into the ceiling, explain why that is stupid from your perspective. Maybe we can establish a dialogue.

Yeah I usually think of shotgun as protection because it won’t go through the walls and accidentally kill someone else in the house.

@evidentialist I apologize for the slow response. Shooting a gun through a ceiling is stupid because the bullet may very well penetrate the ceiling and exit the building potentially injuring or killing someone a great distance away. It's could also strike something that will cause it to ricochet or spray fragments in an unintended direction including at you.

Obviously, if you live in an apartment with other apartments above yours, you wouldn't fire upwards, but I'll assume you were not suggesting that.

@JimG -- No, I wasn't suggesting that, and I admit to being remiss in not providing the caveats needed. Where I live and the materials used in the construction of my home, firing into the ceiling would be safe because most of the bullet's energy would be spent before it even reached the shingling on the outside of the roof. The main reason for that is the insulation used here. Also, I live in a low population density area (rural). Gramps also served as a contract ballistics expert for the LAPD and as a result I took part in a number of experiments (just a grunt helper).

If you have wood floors, firing at a slight angle away from you into the floor is a safe thing to do (not into a tile floor and definitely not into a slab floor). Failing those conditions, the safest but saddest thing is to make sure your bullet lodges into the body of the assailant. Thanks for catching that one.

None of this addresses the type of weapon and magazine capacities.

3

Im not for bans of any sort. I would be on board for a driver lic kind of set up so that ppl woud have to prove their capable of owning the military style weapons and that would fit the bill for the well "regulated" militia clause in the constitution. have backgroud checks as well as a lic system that allows access to higher and higher grades of guns the more u are willing to show your capable and responsibile enough to own them. I would even be open to civilians having access to all out military weapons of all sorts for the higher lic. kind of like CDL and flammable transport lic and things. cells phones cause more than 4000 children to die every year texting and driving but there is not outrage to ban texting capable phones cuz lets face it, text is not a neccessity any more than a military style weapon. u can still make a voice call thru hands free and save thousands of lives. the problem is the access to them not the actual gun.

jorj Level 8 Mar 6, 2018

@jorj -- First, "what about" arguments don't work and don't count.

Now, suppose you provide the reasoning behind your thinking on the subject. What do you bring to the table to support my ability as a private citizen to have an FA - 18, fully armed, in my garage? I know you didn't specifically say that, but the logical limit to what you did say would allow me to possess a nuclear armed ICBM targeted on Washington, DC. To my mind, that sounds unreasonable, so spell it out for me. Where would you draw the line? What would you use to justify that line? How many rounds of ammunition for whatever weapon should one be allowed to stockpile? How does the private citizen maintain combat readiness with whatever maximum line you draw? How would this be overseen and by whom?

Your turn.

"what about" is a way ppl are tryin to silence things they don't want to have to acknowledge cause without contrast and comparison to other things its hard to really understand others perspectives. ive noticed this "what about" thing take fire cuz it allows liberals to ignore valid facts pointed out as to why Hillary lost and and divert attention away from the problems of their own. whether u like "what abouts" or not the majority of america are gonna communicate that way cuz of how it allows u to relay your feelings by comparing things. "FIREARMS" is the limit. missiles and bombs and such are not guns and neither is an F-18. im not one that will say banning them won't stop the killing any cuz i know it will cut back on some of it because of access and black market prices being outrageous but what i think we should do is limit the access instead of banning it. the same way u go take a driving test to get lic is how the guns should be imo. revolvers, rifles and shotguns should be the way they are now. no special lic to own the "hunting" designed weapons. if u want the semi-auto and more u would have to be lic and insured in some way that would hold ppl accountable and u would only sell the military style weapons out of place like liquor is done with ABC stores while beer is sold in gas stations and such. it would stop the mentally ill from having access so easily and allow for ppl to be checked out with more than just a paper trail of felonies and such. i don't think everyone should have access to every gun just like i don't think everyone should be allowed to drive cars. i do agree with the idea that the gun doesnt kill anyone, its the person holding the gun that kills. so instead of banning the guns from ppl willing to prove they are responsible and regulate the offensive style weapons u make a system to prove they are responsible enough for ownership. the cell phone example perfect for this situation cuz the left is wanting to play ppls emotions with kids and using their death for their own politic end but when i point out another item that kills more kids cuz of its function u give me the "what about" spill instead of explaining why it is any different. both items are causing kids to die and if u want to ban one why not ban the other? thought it was about saving lives more than it was about anything else from how the arguments are presented. the line i draw is according to each individual and how far they want to pursue a gun lic to own weapons as they progressively get more offensive in nature instead of defensive. the line for amounts of ammo can be compromised on for different amounts of things based on reasoning and debate to reach an agreement but the far tips of the argument are both being to unreasonable to ever get much progress. we don't need all out bans on anything but we definately don't need every tom, dick and harry out there that just hasnt committed a felony yet to have access to assault weapons without goin thru and proving their mental state and their ability to handle the weapon safely and u could have the ATF along with CCW instructors do the training and testing part and have the applicants got for a mental evaluation from more than just their private doctor before they are given lic. then u would have proven responsible and capable enough to own the assault weapons.

You mean an FFL, class 3 or a tax stamp. We have those.

@evidentialist with proper licensing and enough cash you can own those things. Companies make weapons, they then sell those weapons to the government, private security forces the people and even on occasion allies and rarer still, enemies. Like when obamas administration sold fully automatic weapons to the Mexican drug cartels.

that would be a good model to go from and just extend it on to include other weapons that are currently much too accessible for the overall general public.

3

Jim Jeffries is my favorite!

3

Thank you for osting the Jim Jefferies videos- he is right on the ball . He forgot to mention the special American flavor of this insanity: racism. All the white people being paranoid deep down to their socks about black people remembering slavery and now wanting revenge. I say, lets start a fund to let black citizens can own a gun. Let's see how fast our behavior towards everyone will change!

The U.S. isn't as racist as you think. I don't know any white people who think that there is going to be a race war, especially based on slavery.

@jayneonacobb I disagree with you. I cme here from Germany and have been confronted time and time again with blatent and outrageous racism from white people.

@Spinliesel I'm talking about here in the US. Perhaps you don't notice other forms of racism, or you are assuming that something is racist when it is not. Most Americans aren't racist. That's a fact.

@jayneonacob
In my earlier post, I argue the opposite view, i.e. that race (aka tribalism) is the fundamental difference between those who voted for Trump and those who did not. Just watch YouTube videos of any of Trump’s MAGA rallies, at which the Trumpkins joyfully rub our noses in their racial hostility.

I should note that the second most uncompromisable issue triggering Trumpkins to hate liberals is the former’s prehistorically rooted misogyny.

@jayneonacobb I disagree with you based on my 40 years of observation in this country. And no amount of argument or debate will change that.

3

Nice and succinct.

2

Guns. I moved to rural Arizona over 30 years ago, with 3 young sons, and a man. The man is gone now, as are 2 sons. Downsized? We were a liberal family; registered Dems. I'll never forget the time my oldest, about 8-10 at the time, came running home like his pants were on fire; wildeyed. "We were playing down the hill by the creek and gunshots whizzed past us from above!!" He was freaked out, and me thinking, "Where am I !?" We had a neighbor, who people called Coyote. He appeared...what's the polite word? ineffingsane! I'm kinda nuts, too, but at that time wasn't scaring young children with guns. I'm sure Coyote didn't know the kids were down there; he was just shooting off his gun for fun. Flash ahead a few years, I'm an RN working at the local rural hospital. I heard stories about guns. A family member of a patient pulled a gun on a doc, because he didn't like what that doc told him about the patient, as the story goes. Yup! One of our hefty female Hispanic CNAs saw what was happening, ran down the hall and tackled the guntoting guy, while security was called. No shots were fired. There weren't any signs stating, "No firearms" at the entrance, like there are now, as if that would've deterred this angry man. Also the father of one of our nursing supervisors was selling guns and other gun equipment out of the trunk of his car in the hospital parking lot. This was a secret which everyone knew. He worked in maintanence. A nice guy.
By that time I had met, and was dating a firearms dealer and collector of guns. Really. Me. The liberal Dem. Hippy Peacenik. He was also a Civil War reenactor, and I think it was the uniform that turned me on at first. He was interesting and unusual. I decided it was time to get over my fear of guns. This is Arizona, after all, and everybody has at least one gun. Most have more. "Self Protection"(paranoia?). Garrett taught me gun safety, and I started a small gun collection of my own. My first gun was a 6 shot revolver; a replica of a 19th century .22 caliber Peacemaker. It was fun to shoot. Robert Kennedy was killed with a .22. People think they are pretty harmless, but, ya know, an accurate shot in the correct anatomical location &...bye bye recipient of this small caliber load. A good exampe of why one doesn't need an AR15, unless one wants to kill max number of people in a single incident.
I took the class and obtained my concealed carry permit. Even joined the NRA for a year. NRA people are posted at tables outside gun shows, recruiting new members. After I joined, I started receiving lots of Republican political propaganda. Really?! Me? A lightbulb went off in my head, and I laughed at the irony of this. I was still a liberal Dem with Peacenik tendancies, but now a member of the NRA...and assumed to be politically conservative. It was an awakening of sorts, and I didn't renew after one year. Just couldn't support that lobby, even though I believed that I had a right to my little handgun collection.
Here in The Grand Canyon State, people can buy guns everywhere & anywhere. Out of the trunks of cars, at estate sales, yard sales, swap meets, gun stores, person to private person. And it's easy.
I've unloaded (no pun intended) most of my small collection. Gave a couple away, sold a couple, have another couple to sell...But I will keep my beautiul .22 caliber Peacemaker revolver. I might even go plinking someday again. One gun.
I do NOT feel that assault/military style weapons are necessary to own if you like or collect guns! I think they should be banned & made illegal to own, along with high capacity magazines. I might even be tempted to say semi automatic handguns should be banned, or at least highly controlled.
That's the end of my gun story, for now.
God bless you all! Oops...Just kidding. ;o)

Guns aren't the problem. Like you said, a single shot .22 can kill someone. Its the liberal media glorifying these killings that is the problem. These people want to create the biggest platform they can. The media surrounding the mass shooting phenomenon is a massive platform for A nobody crazy person to occupy. I'd rather have an AR type with a high capacity magazine in a gun fight against the same type of weapon in a criminals hands. Banning guns is the first sign that you live under a tyrant.

@jayneonacobb I don't see the "liberal media" (whoever they are) as "glorifying" the mass shootings at all. I believe, and this is only my opinion, especially after this last shooting in Florida, that the media needs to highlight the young people who were impacted by this horrific tragedy. The "kids" are being allowed to speak out & share their grief. They seem to be alerting the public about a situation that is out of hand via the NRA (again, my opinion). I don't know if any changes in legislation will come of this, and I'm not afraid if there are some changes. I just want this outrageous killing to stop! Secondary issue is lack of mental health services, especially for the poor.

@jayneonacobb -- No, the first sign you live under a tyrant is a deliberate divisions generated among the people, followed immediately by alienating the press, then demonizing it. Then comes an attack on the legislative branch and on the heels of that an attack on the legal system itself. Watch out for the catch phrase "Enemy of the people." Sound familiar? It should.

As for guns not being the problem, that has to be qualified. A firearm by itself does nothing. The problem occurs the instant a firearm and a human come into contact. If you'd like, I'd be happy to explain the psychological connection between the owner and his/her weapon and why being in possession of the weapon enables the criminal and honest citizen as well.

@evidentialist I'd like to hear your testimony about "the psychological connection between the owner and his/her weapon and why being in possession of the weapon enables the criminal and honest citizen as well."

@evidentialist so you're saying liberalism is the first sign of tyrrant? Fits the bill, I agree. About the guns, no, not everyone is a violent psychopath. Again, a gun has no agency, people do. Crazy peoples actions with a gun is what the problem is. You can argue a failed argument a thousand times and you will be wrong a thousand times.

Just for interest.

@mefinder47 the NRA isn't failing to enforce the already existing gun laws, the police and FBI are. That tragedy wouldn't have happened if they had followed up on the information that they had. You're standing on the graves of children as the basis for your argument. What happened when Hitler took guns from his people? The holocost. Gun control is giving your enemies the ability to walk all over you. I bet you think Trump is Hitler. See the problem here?

@evidentialist it's still semi automatic. There is a guy who can fire a lever action just as fast, but accurately. Bump firing is an old technique. The stock it's self is useless in my expert opinion.

@jayneonacobb I don't really have an "argument". I was just telling my story. I have no fear of ever having all my 3 remaining guns taken away, and I wouldn't approve of that tactic. When you say, "gun control" exactly what do you mean? People should have the right to carry assault style semi-automatic weapons for self defense or hunting purposes? My lowly revolvers do that job quite well.(I'm not a hunter) I was taught by a professional gun dealer, that for self defense, the need usually arises within 8 feet of a person; therefore, if you can shoot accurately at a distance, which I can, you should be okay. I don't believe that the Holocaust was caused by Hitler "taking guns away" . I think he planned the Holocaust first, and the guns being taken away was secondary. I'll have to research that.

@jayneonacobb I realize you intended your liberalism retort to land like a clever zinger, but it it wasn’t funny or clever because it is not linked to reality. What makes a comedian’s joke funny to most folks is its stealthy reference to something the audience senses is true. Your attempt at humor fell flat, not because it was mean spirited (which does not per se prevent it from being funny), but because the vast majority of folks who observe the world without an ideological filter realize that the subject of your attack has no logical connection with liberalism. The commentor’s list of factors indicating that you are living under tyranny is derived from indisputable historical facts observed only in the course of takeovers by radical dictatorships, whether arising out of the far right fringe (Hitler, Mussolini, Erdogan, Erdoğan) or the far left fringe (Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, Mao). You cannot name a tyrannical liberal government (an oxymoron if ever there was one), let alone one that has muzzled the free press or done any of the abominable things our commentator listed as the hallmarks of tyrannical takeovers. And it is abundantly clear that these elements of tyranny together form a work in progress of the Trump administration and its enablers among the “leadership” of the limp-dicked remnants of the GOP and the virile, cash driven agents of the Donor Class in our country. Are you aware that the Koch Brothers have for years been quietly lobbying (some say bribing) state legislatures to vote in favor of calling to order a national Article V constitutional convention for the purpose of converting the USA into a right wing evangelical Christian dominionistt’s wet dream? With libertarian abolition of government except for that needed to enforce the new rules of the New Order? If you don’t believe it, pay a visit to the Common Cause website for details, including the chilling fact that the Donor Class and its credulous foot soldiers need to capture “yes” votes from only six 👹 more state legislatures to meet the Constitutional minimum number to force the convening of a Constitutional Convention under Article V. I hope you understand that such a convention poses a far greater threat to the survival of this country than Russia, North Korea, Iran, ISIS, or China combined. In my opinion, if the Koch Brothers and their unwitting minions succeed in convening an Article V convention, we will face the choice of a society structured like a mashup of 1984, The Handmaid’s Tale, and Brave New World, or a new civil war to prevent such a monstrosity in which everyone loses and society degrades into something like the anarchy of Cormac McCarthy’s The Road. If you, @jayneonacobb, are a true believer in Trumpism, this is falling on deaf ears, because facts and logic do not penetrate a mind emotionally attached to a cult. But since you are a member of this community, there is still hope for you. Please thoughtfully consider the comments on this board from advocates of rational gun control in an age of personal weaponry our Founding Fathers did not have in mind when they drafted the 2nd Amendment. Thank you for listening.

@jayneonacobb -- I think it would be wise of you to investigate history a little more thoroughly, particularly with regard to the holocaust and gun control in Germany. I think the results might surprise you. There is a modicum of truth to what you said, but it is far more complicated than that.

2

Even though the fire arms stay in a safe. The primitive weapons are always at hand I have a crossbow with in arms reach and my compound bow is easy access too. I figure they are quiet in the event of more than one problem to take care of. The gun is something that deems great respect it has saved more lives than it has taken. The people that missaproate the tool that is meant for protection and hunting, should have the same deed that they did to others done to them. Here in our state we have the right ot open carry. I do not think that bravado is necessary. I do think that everyone has the right to protect their loved ones as best they can.

@azzow2 -- This notion of guns save lives is a common one, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The NRA has been guilty of promoting this idea with carefully chosen data comparison points that when shuffled just a tiny amount change radically.

But it's not "guns" that are in question here. It is type and capacity. However, what I'm about in your particular case is to refute that claim of firearms saving more lives than they take.

[scientificamerican.com]

@evidentialist Just was thinking about some historical data with my thought that guns saves lives. In the instances of Hitler's ideas of genside because of guns the world was able to pull together and force change. As well as in many other situations so in that respect guns saves lives. In a civic environment guns have no place. When a farmer shoots a predator to protect his livelihood guns belong. With the way the laws are set up would be unfair to say the farmer can have a gun and diamond jewelry could not . The diamond jeweler also has a livelihood to protect but a diamond is not going to solve being hungry.

2

The Jim Jefferies bit is perfect.

2

I'd have to agree with you 100 percent.

Other than "They're fun!" there is just no argument - except for the folks who think they could fight off an invasion/takeover with assault weapons - be that by some unknown "other" or our own country. (And those folks are pretty crazy too).

1

He's mostly hilarious (except for the piece on Aspbergers...unnecessary) and spot on! Nice post!

1

Thanks for posting the Jim Jeffries videos. Textbook example of how satire is the most effective tool in the debating arsenal.

1

Couldn't agree with you more. On this site you might be preachin' to the choir. The trick is trying to convince the batshit crazies who believe every batshit crazy thing the nra tells them.

1

I'm not a gun enthusiast, by any stretch of the imagination. I've possessed and fired rifles and handguns from time to time over the years, and don't particularly care if someone wants to have either or both. But, multiples of either and the pursuit of gun ownership as an obsession (religion) is beyond me. I don't understand why one would need more than a shotgun for home defense, or maybe a couple handguns for target shooting. OK, maybe a .3006 for hunting. More than that...why?

1

I watched that Jefferies, skit a few days ago. Spot on! I see guns, the same way that you stated. I would never shoot someone, even to defend myself. It is not that I would rather die, I could not stand the sight of a person bleeding or suffering, if I shot them! And...I have been exposed to enough irrational people who, if they had a gun handy...could possibly shoot somebody! I do believe, that I would be able to sacrifice something that I considered dear to my heart, if it was for the common good! I would not want my fellow citizens to be 'on edge,' (trying to make a life in this world)...because, I possessed a dangerous something that could mame or kill them or a family member! I do care about my humankind!

1

First of all banning the AR15, a civilian rifle, is not going to stop school shootings. Virginia tech was attacked with hand guns exclusively. Most gun crime, according to politifacts (a leftist outlet) is committed with hand guns at about a rate of 80%. That means that 20% of all gun crime is committed with long guns, a much smaller percent is committed with the AR15 out of that remaining 20%.

Secondly, the second amendment is for the people. Why would the government give it's self a basic human right if they are a construct, not a person? The bill of rights applies to the people and limits the power of government. I'm going to guess that you think Trump is Hitler 2.0, as almost all liberals compare the two and find them equal. Hitler disarmed the people he later committed genocide against. You are basically saying that Hitler was right for disarming his victims.

Third, if you draw a firearm and fire it, but do not shoot to kill (miss on purpose by shooting the cealing) it proves that you used excessive force and that you did not need to draw your weapon.

Fourth, the second amendment is not for hunting. The part about the well regulated militia is called a qualifier. It is the reason the people need to keep and bear arms.

Finally, if you can't keep your insults to your self like "cognitively challenged" then you are not mature enough to engage in this debate.

As an aside, the gun crime in Australia was dropping at an identicle rate before the gun ban as after. England's gun violence rose dramatically after theirs in 1997. Chicago is so bad that if you don't murder someone in front of a cop you will likely get away with it. Chicago btw, has one of the highest murder rates in the country and some of the strictest gun control in the country. Also your numbers are way off on the rate of fire for an AR. You clearly didn't do any research on the subject. You're just regurgitating liberal propaganda.

Your Chicago argument is disingenuous, because you must concede that the city’s strict gun regulations are futile when its residents can easily drive to Indiana and legally purchase all the organ shredding assault rifles and magnum handguns they can afford.
You obviously hate liberals, and it used to perplex me why right wingers historically despised us so much, and today seem to mindlessly despise us even more than ever.

But once Trump began to gain traction before and during the presidential primaries, and the volume of intense anti-Obama hate speech rose to a fever pitch at MAGA campaign rallies—and since then has shown no signs of abating as we near the 2-year mark of 45’s Rule—I realized that, deep down, Trumpkins hate liberals because we are on the opposite side of the race issue from you, and, sadly, there is no way to reach a rational compromise on issues such as slavery, separate-but-equal schools and public accommodations, or any other form of legalized discrimination against human beings because of the color of their skin. The Civil War failed to eradicate it, and the existance of publicly-funded memorial statues of confederate soldiers, and the wide spread ritual of citizens festooning their pickup trucks with confederate flags and paraphernalia to this day, suggest that the racist beliefs of a substantial segment of society are rooted in a sort of lizard-brain-level tribalism, as if written indelibly in their DNA. Neither side is capable of compromising by giving away something to the other. That’s why the Constitutional Convention issue poses such a fatal danger to our democracy. Liberals are simply incapable of agreeing to creating a high tech“Christian” nation based on pre-Civil War customs and values that will reverse more than two centuries of progress in civil rights.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:33141
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.