(02-25-2018, 08:17 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]The Stoneman Douglas survivors and other gun safety activists are truly affecting change right now.
Yes, they are, and they are doing such a good job of it that there are those who come out daily attempting to discredit them. Those young people are going after every politician who accepts money from the NRA. They have an incredible amount of support & that march they are planning is really going to be something to see.
(02-23-2018, 02:01 PM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]Many people think AR stands for assault rifle, does anyone know what it really stands for?
Adolf's rifle? 
(02-26-2018, 07:28 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ] (02-23-2018, 02:01 PM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]Many people think AR stands for assault rifle, does anyone know what it really stands for?
Adolf's rifle?
Armalite Rifle model 15. Armalite was the original company and Eugene Stoner was the leading designer of the AR. I believe there were two others involved in the actual design process. There were two models, one civilian and one for the military. The Ar15 was a semi auto and the M16 was a select fire rifle. That was the big difference in the two. Oops, looks like I got away from the actual question. hahahahaha
Going back to my, its a good start being heard as they want to take my guns. Read the comments of the brady bunch FB group. Find the post about the proposed assault weapon ban of 2018. Some posts are unbelievable. Here is a link to their FB page. I cant comment there because they banned me long ago.
https://www.facebook.com/bradycampaign/
David Kotzebue It's not enough. Pistols are semi-auto.
David Kotzebue I do. Repeal and replace the 2d Amendment.
Terri Parr Worthey It is a start! #angertoaction
Robert Bicknell Then make it simple, ban all semiautomatic rifles.
Billy Amon While this is a great start, the bill should also include a mandatory buyback provision. No civilian should own a weapon of war. We need to confiscate them all.
Joni Anderson If you are going to write a ban, then ban them all. Don't let current owners keep them either. Maybe then, all these idiots will quit buying more weapons after every mass shooting.
Helen Tartakoff A good start, but should also require surrender of all assault-type weapons, within a specific amount if time (year? two years at most?) after which there will be specific penalties (including, but not limited to confiscation) for anyone still found to possess them, with increasing penalties as more time passes.
Only their own kind is going to listen to those people, FU. They are as willfully ignorant as many on the far right. Rational people don't share their ridiculous opinions.
(02-27-2018, 05:21 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
Only their own kind is going to listen to those people, FU. They are as willfully ignorant as many on the far right. Rational people don't share their ridiculous opinions.
Problem is that both sides hear their cries to ban. That is what I was talking about.
Just as the anti's troll the Pro side groups, the pro side trolls the anti side [I still check that group daily] and we see what is on their mind. Yes it is the extremes on both side that make them look bad, I understand that, but their wishes are still seen. That is why its so hard to get anything done. The extremes on the left are yelling repeal the 2
nd and the extremes on the right are yelling from my cold dead hands.
I just made the above post to emphasize my previous post for those that have said, no one wants to take your guns.
Both sides DO have their share of crazies and zealots, true enough.
I just fired back yesterday to the NAGR for an email they sent me stating that Trump and the right are selling up out and going to take our rights. I called them out on it because everything in the 4 main points they made was a Lie according to what I hear Trump saying and what I see him doing.
There are indeed a LOT of people out there want to take ALL or some significant portion of our second away. And there are some in here that do not consider that to be an attack on the 2nd. Hopefully Mr Trump will listen to the cooler heads that have a clue and are capable of making intelligent decisions and come up with a plan that will work. Be interesting to see how many of the points I have made will be in there
You have a right to bear arms, which is not without restrictions, according to the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court. Period.
You do not have a Second Amendment right to own automatic weapons (already very restricted by law), every kind of firearm manufactured, every kind of ammunition manufactured, an unlimited quantity of firearms, or anything like that. Period.
Those are the facts and the law.
Calls for universal background checks, age limits, banning new sales of AR15s and/or high capacity magazines, red flag laws, enhanced school security, better enforcement of existing laws, more coordination and better response to threats by LE/courts/med professionals, NICS updgrades, and the like are not attacks on the Second Amendment nor do they equate to "taking all your guns away and stripping you of your rights!"
So, I'm really curious to hear about those comments I missed where posters here are advocating to take all guns away from U.S. citizens and ban all guns, Six. Please tell us the names or quote the posts if you're going to make that claim. The only posts that I can recall that even came close were Adub's and blueberry's opinions that the Second Amendment (or at least the interpretation of it) needs to be revisited years ago.
I assumed six was talking about other places, not here.
No, he said "some in here".
Snip:
![[Image: 2016-06-23t163853z_1297212921_s1aetlpalx...k=TXHv9W47]](http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/styles/ratio--3-2--830x553/public/2016-06-23t163853z_1297212921_s1aetlpalxaa_rtrmadp_3_florida-shooting-guns.jpg?itok=TXHv9W47)
House GOP leaders downplayed the need for Congress to pass expansive new gun control measures on Tuesday, instead turning their ire on the FBI and local law enforcement for failing to prevent the Parkland, Fla. school shooting.
Speaker Paul Ryan ^ told reporters at a press conference that “we shouldn’t be banning guns for law-abiding citizens” but “focusing on making sure that citizens who shouldn’t get guns in the first place, don’t get those guns.” Ryan — who said arming teachers was a “good idea” but a local issue that Congress should not infringe upon — touted a House-passed bill to reinforce background checks under current law.
But that bill also loosens gun laws by allowing gun owners with concealed-carry weapons permits in their state to take their firearm into other states — an idea going nowhere in the Senate. Ryan wouldn’t say whether he would allow the House to decouple so-called Fix NICS language from the more controversial concealed-carry reciprocity provisions.
The Senate is expected to do just that in the coming days, by advancing a bill that pushes federal agencies and states to submit required information on individuals’ criminal history to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System. But House conservatives are loath to back a bill they say infringes on the civil liberties of gun holders — even though the NRA supports the legislation and Democrats argue the bill barely moves the needle on gun control.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/2...rol-426711
The concealed carry reciprocity bill (meaning any gun owner approved for concealed carry by one state's LE should be able to concealed carry in every other state, regardless of their concealed carry laws) should absolutely not be a rider on the Fix NICS bill. I very much hope that Congress does the right thing and decouples the two.
Fix NICS (background check database), universal background checks, heavy pressure on agencies to report unqualified gun-owners (criminals, domestic abusers, mentally ill...) into NICS as required or face massive penalty, nixing the 3-day max for the fed to complete a background check, better LE preventive and active shooter training/response, and red flag laws allowing authorities to remove guns from those credibly reported as a violent threat to others........are the gun safety/control measures that I'd like to see most.
I think it also makes sense to raise the gun purchase age to 21 for all guns, as Florida just did and Trump said he'd like to do (though he seems to have dropped that plan after having lunch with the NRA brass). Limiting magazines to 10 is something I could support too.
As for banning AR15s, if all the other changes/improvements above were implemented and worked much better than now, I'm not sure that would be necessary and I don't give a shit if gun lovers own them for sport and recreation. But, there's no denying that they're the mass murderers' preferred weapon and right now authorities are not doing enough to prevent mass murderers from buying them and using them to gun down innocent people, more and more frequently. So, it would not bother me if they were banned, especially if nothing else is done on a federal level.
(02-27-2018, 01:51 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Calls for universal background checks, age limits, banning new sales of AR15s and/or high capacity magazines, red flag laws, enhanced school security, better enforcement of existing laws, more coordination and better response to threats by LE/courts/med professionals, NICS updgrades, and the like are not attacks on the Second Amendment nor do they equate to "taking all your guns away and stripping you of your rights!"
Just what the fuck do you call a Ban? You put it right there in your post. It is an attack, no matter what it is.
Some of that attack that I Agree with such as bump stocks. Some I do not such as " and/or high capacity magazines" its an attack and will accomplish nothing.
If you pay any attention to my posts you will see that I agree with age limits, red flags and everything else you listed.
I also did not point a finger at Anyone here as "coming for our guns" I did call you out as denying there is an attack on the 2
nd. Those people are out there and they are trying, if you choose to deny that its your choice, but its pretty damned disingenuous if you do. FU talked about them, google is your friend and there is no shortage of articles or groups that want ALL guns, Some Guns, whatever banned, Those are people I am talking about. YOUR statement was that there is NO attack on the 2
nd, I say there is. Just because it isn't you or the RNC does not mean it isn't real
I have no fear that it will succeed, but thats because there are many pro gun rights out there including me and a few others in here, there is also the NRA and other gun rights groups that help defend.
So, here is what happened in the Minneapolis suburb of Orono last week.
A kid posted on Twitter, while he was at school, that “nobody is safe, I’m shooting up the school.”
The school district went on lockdown, and the authorities ID’ed him while at school, and took him into custody.
Now today, there’s a story in our Mpls paper about fellow students parents starting a GoFundMe account for his family to deal with court costs, etc.
The parents believe this boy is autisic and has true problems and wouldn’t ‘really’ hurt anybody.
The kid is currently in the Hennepin County Juvenile lockup (close to my house by the way).
My question for everyone is this:
We saw with the Florida shooter that he made numerous threats to become a school shooter and nothing was done.
I say that this boy’s family should willingly give up all their firearms but if they don’t want to, too bad... this kid is a threat and the public has a right to their safety and I don’t believe this kid can be trusted for a long, long time.
What say you fine folks?
(02-27-2018, 04:20 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: [ -> ]Those people are out there and they are trying, if you choose to deny that its your choice, but its pretty damned disingenuous if you do. FU talked about them, google is your friend and there is no shortage of articles or groups that want ALL guns, Some Guns, whatever banned, Those are people I am talking about. YOUR statement was that there is NO attack on the 2nd, I say there is. Just because it isn't you or the RNC does not mean it isn't real
Why in the hell would you pay credence to those freakin' nutjobs, those people whose posts FU posted here (and those like them)? Why? They have no power, they are doing nothing more than talkin' shit, they're nobody and they can't do a damn thing except mouth off. I don't know anyone like that. I don't know a single soul who is calling for your 2nd amendment rights to be taken away, that's just bullshit, Six and for the life of me I cannot understand why you would give them so much power in your head.
(02-27-2018, 04:20 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-27-2018, 01:51 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Calls for universal background checks, age limits, banning new sales of AR15s and/or high capacity magazines, red flag laws, enhanced school security, better enforcement of existing laws, more coordination and better response to threats by LE/courts/med professionals, NICS updgrades, and the like are not attacks on the Second Amendment nor do they equate to "taking all your guns away and stripping you of your rights!"
Just what the fuck do you call a Ban? You put it right there in your post. It is an attack, no matter what it is.
Some of that attack that I Agree with such as bump stocks. Some I do not such as " and/or high capacity magazines" its an attack and will accomplish nothing.
If you pay any attention to my posts you will see that I agree with age limits, red flags and everything else you listed.
I also did not point a finger at Anyone here as "coming for our guns" I did call you out as denying there is an attack on the 2nd. Those people are out there and they are trying, if you choose to deny that its your choice, but its pretty damned disingenuous if you do. FU talked about them, google is your friend and there is no shortage of articles or groups that want ALL guns, Some Guns, whatever banned, Those are people I am talking about. YOUR statement was that there is NO attack on the 2nd, I say there is. Just because it isn't you or the RNC does not mean it isn't real
I have no fear that it will succeed, but thats because there are many pro gun rights out there including me and a few others in here, there is also the NRA and other gun rights groups that help defend.
A ban on certain firearms is not an attack on the Second Amendment. It's not a ban on all firearms nor a violation of your Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense. It wasn't Unconstitutional when certain firearms were banned in 94, and it's still not. I've explained that many times already, Six.
If you don't agree or don't understand what the Second Amendment states and what the Supreme Court ruled, that's fine. But, I do understand what the Second Amendment says. And, I understand what the Supreme Court ruled (it was very conservative Justice Scalia who said that the self-defense guarantee is 'not unlimited').
I understand that you will continue to insist that people who want a ban on AR15s are attacking your Second Amendment rights when that's legally false. It's your first amendment right to keep repeating that claim.
And, when you keep repeating that claim, some of us will ignore it or continue to point out that wanting better gun safety and control, and even restricting/banning certain firearms, is not a Second Amendment issue. All it does is shut down productive discussion and improvement-oriented compromise.
The minority of people who actually do want all firearms banned in this country are advocating something that violates the Second Amendment. I agree with you -- that's just a fact. I have not seen anyone do that here at Mock, but of course you can go looking for those anti-gun extremists on-line and find them.
It's also very easy to find pro-gun extremists, though most gun owners are rational (from what I've seen) and do want improvements made to our current gun control/safety processes, like universal background checks (which the NRA opposes, even when presented with a bill after Sandy Hook that had no riders and no pork).
I think the NRA is representing gun manufacturers as their primary focus, not gun owners. The "attack on the Second Amendment!", "European Socialist Lefties!" and other stale NRA rhetoric that inevitably gets tossed out whenever the gun debate is reignited only resonates with some people. Most see through it, in my opinion.
(02-27-2018, 04:37 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]My question for everyone is this:
We saw with the Florida shooter that he made numerous threats to become a school shooter and nothing was done.
I say that this boy’s family should willingly give up all their firearms but if they don’t want to, too bad... this kid is a threat and the public has a right to their safety and I don’t believe this kid can be trusted for a long, long time.
What say you fine folks?
I say mandate mental health treatment for the boy. Autism doesn't make people more prone to violence or violent threats in and of itself.
Also, mandate that the parents agree to lock up all their guns with absolutely no access to them by the boy and stipulate that they're subject to random checks of the house (and actually follow through with random checks).
I think it would be less risky to mandate that the parents have no guns in the house; very few people want to see another Adam Lanza or Nikolas Cruz situation play out. However, the parents do have a Second Amendment right to bear arms, in a regulated fashion that is not without restrictions.
I'm seeing plenty of momentum in my state and community about allowing certain teachers to conceal carry in school. Parents, teachers and students are behind this no matter what happens with gun laws. Security is a number 1 concern that can be achieved in a relatively short time. Its a solution that has not gained much traction in the past but in today's world is certainly a faster and better way to get things done. Don't let anyone tell you that it gives more of a chance for an accident. That's just a talking point that will be used to prevent it. Each community has a decision to make and I am sure the right one will be used. Even if its a police security detail in schools. They normally have a pretty easy day until something happens and hopefully none are like the coward from Broward.
I haven't met or seen any teachers interviewed who agree with the idea of training and serving as security guards along with doing their actual jobs of teaching.
But, I know there are some teachers in some locales who choose to carry on-the-job and are already permitted to do so.
I don't object to that IF there is a very strict set of safety guidelines. There is real risk. It's not just a talking point. In the last couple of years, teachers carrying on campus have shot themselves in the foot or leg in a few different states (Utah and Idaho among them, IIRC).
Fortunately, I haven't heard of any teachers losing their shit or being overpowered in order to have their guns stolen and then shooting a student. I hope that doesn't happen.
One of the concerns that I've heard repeated by several teachers, students, and education representatives who object to guns in classrooms is the reality that cops sometimes shoot the good guys/gals with guns when they arrive at the scene of an incident. It happened again on the same day as the Florida school massacre, Feb. 14th, when a man in Texas was able to get the gun away from a bad guy holding hostages in his church. Police arrived and opened fire on the good guy (who thankfully survived).