129

[aussiefriend]

If I lived in the USA I would definitely own a gun. I would buy all legally and have the licence and all that. I would also go and get the proper training to know exactly what I was doing. I would use it as protection. You need it there. I have seen you guys have sex offenders on every corner. I also watch a lot of true crime. Some of the stuff that goes on over there is horrendus. We have creeps here too, but no guns or gun shops like. Criminals have them, but illegally.

[BlueTiki]

For CARSMAN

First, thank you, for considering me wise.  Be it tongue-in-cheek, the fact is I strive to educate myself on many subjects.  And that is not to say that I reach the correct conclusions, no matter how hard I persevere.

When ANY firearm is used in an aggressive and unlawful manner, it is becomes an ASSAULT weapon.  When the same firearm is used for protection against said "attacks", it is now a DEFENSIVE weapon.  It is the intent of the user, not the firearm, that determines how it is to be used.   The same is true with any inanimate object.  Any object can be used to cause physical harm or death, to a person or persons.  Cain killed Abel with a rock . . . still being used in the Middle East . . . offensively and defensively.

Your war analogy proves the point.  The US is shipping weapons to Ukraine to DEFEND against an aggressor.  An ASSAULT is being perpetrated on the people of Ukraine.  We are sending arms and ammunition so they may DEFEND themselves against a Russian AGGRESSOR who targets, intimidates and kills innocent civilians.  We are providing DEFENSIVE WEAPONS.

By all means, as I have stated, I endeavor to educate myself so please correct me when I state that the US is NOT sending AR-15s to Ukraine, as the weapon for their DEFENSE and survival.  

Or, stated another way:  "The US is not sending AR-15s, or any other media labeled ASSAULT WEAPONS, as used in ANY of the mass school shootings, to UKRAINE."  God help them if we are . . . as tranny Audrey used a semi-automatic Kel-Tec 9mm rifle (a pistol cartridge) to perpetrate her crime of hate  . . . and that is not a weapon used by the US military.  

Truth matters . . . as does ammo.

Assault rifles DO NOT make make killing quicker . . . training, target acquisition and shot placement, does.  And ammo type.

Refresh my memory . . . what semi-autos and "weapons of war" . . .  were used in the assassinations of US presidents?

I am honesty at a loss, recalling that info.

[Piglet]

Blue, i have an offensive weapon and im waving it at you.

[Duchess]

^^^^^^^ More errors.

[BlueTiki]

^^^^^^^ More errors.

Well . . . it seems not only was I mistaken about the NYC Grand Jury, but also in my response to Carsman's post.  Golly, Thursday was a real Red Letter Day for me!

Thank you, Duchess for pointing out that deficiencies existed within the response.  Unfortunately, as you did not list the errors (just like my 5^th Grade English Teacher, stingy and fat, Mr. "Fish Lips" Brea)  I hope I found them all.  Again, thanks for the heads-up and the opportunity to correct my errors.

FIRST - "Gender Pretender Audrey" used a KelTec Sub2000 semi-automatic pistol/carbine.  I stated it was a KelTec 9mm semi-auto rifle.  

As the Sub2000 is available in both 9mm and .40 caliber pistol rounds, it was inaccurate for me to positively state that the weapon "Dickless Aiden" used, was chambered for 9mm.  It was a supposition on my part and as she also had a 9mm pistol . . . two weapons, same caliber . . . I made a deduction.

SECOND - I did fail to recognize the Racial (Rascist) component regarding "Assault Weapons" and "Weapons of War".  "Black and Scary Looking" is a racist, and often used, description of our fine and upstanding dark race of productive American citizens . . . by those fearful of criminal acts . . . like "assault" or "race war".

"RAPE Weapon", "CARJACK Weapon"  . . . would be too obvious.

As the firearms used by Hale (the Anti-Christian, defenseless-child murderer and Negro killer), were black and scary looking, one need not look beyond the systemic racist culture to attribute the word "ASSAULT" with anything black and scary looking . . . regardless of intent . . . and used by liberals masquerading as equity warriors to appear knowledgeable (while hiding their racism).

Again, my thanks for the "catch".  Careless, but truly unintentional, on my part.

[Duchess]

Again, my thanks for the "catch".  Careless, but truly unintentional, on my part.

Please stop. My post wasn't directed at you, I wasn't even thinking about your post, I was responding to Piggy's ridiculous challenge to point out the errors in his use of the English language. I ignored him the first time he asked, but he brought it up again, so now I'm giving him what he asked for whenever I come across his posts.

[BlueTiki]

Wow!  Now I'm really hurt.  He NOW deserves your attention regarding errors . . . even though he's been making them and subjecting this forum to them for over 8 months?

I'm . . . I'm . . . devastated!  Your words . . . they cut to the soul!   And that tone . . . of telling me to stop . . . painful!

You've finally broken my spirit and what little self-worth I was barely clinging to!

[Duchess]

*gasp* Are..are you...are you shouting at me?   

[BlueTiki]

 No.  ** sobbing **  If I was shouting, it would be in all caps and bold.

Now, go away . . . I'm still really, really hurt!  **  now back to full blown weeping with snot-bubbles **

[Carsman]

For CARSMAN

First, thank you, for considering me wise.  Be it tongue-in-cheek, the fact is I strive to educate myself on many subjects.  And that is not to say that I reach the correct conclusions, no matter how hard I persevere.

When ANY firearm is used in an aggressive and unlawful manner, it is becomes an ASSAULT weapon.  When the same firearm is used for protection against said "attacks", it is now a DEFENSIVE weapon.  It is the intent of the user, not the firearm, that determines how it is to be used.   The same is true with any inanimate object.  Any object can be used to cause physical harm or death, to a person or persons.  Cain killed Abel with a rock . . . still being used in the Middle East . . . offensively and defensively.

Your war analogy proves the point.  The US is shipping weapons to Ukraine to DEFEND against an aggressor.  An ASSAULT is being perpetrated on the people of Ukraine.  We are sending arms and ammunition so they may DEFEND themselves against a Russian AGGRESSOR who targets, intimidates and kills innocent civilians.  We are providing DEFENSIVE WEAPONS.

By all means, as I have stated, I endeavor to educate myself so please correct me when I state that the US is NOT sending AR-15s to Ukraine, as the weapon for their DEFENSE and survival.  

Or, stated another way:  "The US is not sending AR-15s, or any other media labeled ASSAULT WEAPONS, as used in ANY of the mass school shootings, to UKRAINE."  God help them if we are . . . as tranny Audrey used a semi-automatic Kel-Tec 9mm rifle (a pistol cartridge) to perpetrate her crime of hate  . . . and that is not a weapon used by the US military.  

Truth matters . . . as does ammo.

Assault rifles DO NOT make make killing quicker . . . training, target acquisition and shot placement, does.  And ammo type.

Refresh my memory . . . what semi-autos and "weapons of war" . . .  were used in the assassinations of US presidents?

I am honesty at a loss, recalling that info.

So many eloquent filibuster words, and words and words. Yet you still haven’t addressed your view on my view of the need for “John Q Public”  Not  to be able to 
Purchase a “rapid fire rifle” that can kill a multitude of innocent people/children.

[BlueTiki]

Here are more words.  However, I've highlighted the direct answer to your question.  Read the rest or don't . . . no matter to me.  Just thought you deserved a little more than a curt and clipped answer.

OK . . . to be clear, I'm now assuming that "rapid fire rifle" means semi-automatic firearm . . . be it pistol or rifle.  Again . . . working definition . . . semi-automatic . . . not fully automatic or something capable of multi-round burst fire.  Semi-automatic firearms discharge when the trigger is repeatedly pulled.  It will not fire continuously, merely by keeping the trigger depressed. 

Semi-automatic rifles have been available to the public since 1885.  Depending on who you tend to favor, Winchester and Remington produced and sold them in 1905 and 1906 respectively.  Modern day semi-automatic firearms use the same 130+ year basic gas operated technology, as currently found on the early 1900's firearms.

So . . . These '"Rapid Fire" weapons have been around and readily available for over 123 years.  And it wasn't until  . . . what . . . maybe 30+ years ago "they" suddenly became a problem?  

Sorry . . . the weapon ain't the problem.  Maybe it was the death of disco or the birth of grunge . . . I don't know why people choose to commit murder.

But to allege or assume every purchaser of a semi-automatic firearm is intent on committing mass-murder, is baseless and absolute fear mongering.

If you don't want to purchase one . . . don't.  It's a personal choice.

But don't infringe on someone else's lawful right to legally purchase this type of weapon if it suits their needs. 

What I find curious, is you've never asked me if I own a firearm similar to those known as "Assault Weapons" (AR-15 scary-looking, child-killing type, weapon of war).

For the record, I don't currently own one.  Doesn't fit my personal need (or desire).

[Duchess]

Why does one's right to own semi-automatic weapons outweigh one's right to live?

I just now googled "what are semiautomatic guns used for". I got 21,500,000 results and while I certainly didn't read every result, in the results I did read, the question was not answered.

One of our members, FU, is the most ardent gun rights/gun supporter I've ever encountered. His collection of weapons & ammo would put a gun shop to shame and one of the last times he was here he said he had finally come around, he thought it was time to do something. To read him say that was significant to me because his view had always been the same as the guy who said "take my gun from my cold dead hands" bullshit. I can't recall the proper quote, but I know most of you will know what I'm referring to.

The majority of Americans believe their right to live, work, play and worship outweighs one's right to play with their gun. When a weapon is only used for fun, that's playing.

[rothschild]

Can you quantify the impact that banning semi-automatic firearms would have on school violence in terms of numbers?

If the decrease turned out to be marginal would we then be talking about banning all firearms?

If people intending to do violence in schools began using IED's, would we then be talking about banning everything that can be used to make an IED?

What does any of that do to address the fact that we are a violent, disfunctional society going to hell in a handbasket?


Answering these questions requires putting aside emotions and thinking logically. Are people who support legislative band-aids willing and able to do that so we can come up with a comprehensive solution to the problem of rampant violence?

[Duchess]

All I know for sure is that banning all firearms is not the answer, nor should it be. That will never happen and I don't know anyone who wants that to happen. I think you're the only person I've ever seen say that.

[Carsman]

Here are more words.  However, I've highlighted the direct answer to your question.  Read the rest or don't . . . no matter to me.  Just thought you deserved a little more than a curt and clipped answer.

OK . . . to be clear, I'm now assuming that "rapid fire rifle" means semi-automatic firearm . . . be it pistol or rifle.  Again . . . working definition . . . semi-automatic . . . not fully automatic or something capable of multi-round burst fire.  Semi-automatic firearms discharge when the trigger is repeatedly pulled.  It will not fire continuously, merely by keeping the trigger depressed. 

Semi-automatic rifles have been available to the public since 1885.  Depending on who you tend to favor, Winchester and Remington produced and sold them in 1905 and 1906 respectively.  Modern day semi-automatic firearms use the same 130+ year basic gas operated technology, as currently found on the early 1900's firearms.

So . . . These '"Rapid Fire" weapons have been around and readily available for over 123 years.  And it wasn't until  . . . what . . . maybe 30+ years ago "they" suddenly became a problem?  

Sorry . . . the weapon ain't the problem.  Maybe it was the death of disco or the birth of grunge . . . I don't know why people choose to commit murder.

But to allege or assume every purchaser of a semi-automatic firearm is intent on committing mass-murder, is baseless and absolute fear mongering.

If you don't want to purchase one . . . don't.  It's a personal choice.

But don't infringe on someone else's lawful right to legally purchase this type of weapon if it suits their needs. 

What I find curious, is you've never asked me if I own a firearm similar to those known as "Assault Weapons" (AR-15 scary-looking, child-killing type, weapon of war).

For the record, I don't currently own one.  Doesn't fit my personal need (or desire).

For the record, I’m glad you don’t own one, nor do I. What personal “need” can
Justify having to have a rapid firing weapon? It’s not for sport hunting, protection.
It’s too late for the grater good! The sickos already have those weapons, as well
as sickos can still and do buy them easily. There is no answer to the problem. 

[BlueTiki]

For the record, I’m glad you don’t own one, nor do I. What personal “need” can
Justify having to have a rapid firing weapon? It’s not for sport hunting, protection.
It’s too late for the grater good! The sickos already have those weapons, as well
as sickos can still and do buy them easily. There is no answer to the problem. 

If you think (I'm stating that figuratively . . . please read as: "If one thinks ") because I own firearms and believe in the 2^nd Amendment I am not concerned about weapons being in the hands of dangerous and evil people, then you are completely and utterly insane.  You need serious and professional help.

If you want to outlaw the manufacturing and sale of AR-15s and civilian style AK-47s . . . OK by me . . . you will not get an argument or opposition.  These are what our President labels as "Assault Weapons".  If these two styles of weapons are all he wants to ban . . . no problem or opposition from me.

If he wants them confiscated, no problem . . . as long as the owners are paid 100 times the current market value, at the time of the ban, for their surrender.  Cheap price to pay to guarantee innocent people's lives and safety.  No wiggle room on that one.

Additionally, I would demand anyone found guilty of a weapons crime, get an automatic death sentence. One appeal and sentence to be carried out with two years of conviction.  NO budging on that one.  Death for any offense that used a gun regardless of the age or competency of the guilty.  Automatic death sentence and NO plea bargaining to reduce or eliminate the weapons charge.

I am absolutely serious in my general overview of what I'd be willing to support.  This is NOT a joke and I am a staunch 2^nd Amendment supporter.

As a favor, and as a courtesy, I still want to know the reason for the uptick in mass shooting and killing over the last four decades.  That is THE unanswered question.  

It's not the gun . . . and all of you know that, too.

Also, would someone please show me where the "right to bear ammo" is, in the Constitution?

I know ammo doesn't matter, to many folks, but I kinda do like the Constitution and believe in what is does and does not allow.

[rothschild]

All I know for sure is that banning all firearms is not the answer, nor should it be. That will never happen and I don't know anyone who wants that to happen. I think you're the only person I've ever seen say that.

Why would you say that when a significant number of people don't accept that the Second Amendment equates to a right to own firearms?

Again, if banning "assault" weapons failed to significantly decrease gun violence, what would be the most likely reaction of those who strongly believe that gun control is the answer to reducing gun violence? Do you really think they'd throw up their hands and start thinking about alternative approaches?

[Duchess]

You can't possibly believe that the right to bear arms would ever be taken away. C'mon! There's more of a chance of me becoming a world class chef than there is for the 2A being taken away. 

[Carsman]

For the record, I’m glad you don’t own one, nor do I. What personal “need” can
Justify having to have a rapid firing weapon? It’s not for sport hunting, protection.
It’s too late for the grater good! The sickos already have those weapons, as well
as sickos can still and do buy them easily. There is no answer 

If you think (I'm stating that figuratively . . . please read as: "If one thinks ") because I own firearms and believe in the 2^nd Amendment I am not concerned about weapons being in the hands of dangerous and evil people, then you are completely and utterly insane.  You need serious and professional help.

If you want to outlaw the manufacturing and sale of AR-15s and civilian style AK-47s . . . OK by me . . . you will not get an argument or opposition.  These are what our President labels as "Assault Weapons".  If these two styles of weapons are all he wants to ban . . . no problem or opposition from me.

If he wants them confiscated, no problem . . . as long as the owners are paid 100 times the current market value, at the time of the ban, for their surrender.  Cheap price to pay to guarantee innocent people's lives and safety.  No wiggle room on that one.

Additionally, I would demand anyone found guilty of a weapons crime, get an automatic death sentence. One appeal and sentence to be carried out with two years of conviction.  NO budging on that one.  Death for any offense that used a gun regardless of the age or competency of the guilty.  Automatic death sentence and NO plea bargaining to reduce or eliminate the weapons charge.

I am absolutely serious in my general overview of what I'd be willing to support.  This is NOT a joke and I am a staunch 2^nd Amendment supporter.

As a favor, and as a courtesy, I still want to know the reason for the uptick in mass shooting and killing over the last four decades.  That is THE unanswered question.  

It's not the gun . . . and all of you know that, too.

Also, would someone please show me where the "right to bear ammo" is, in the Constitution?

I know ammo doesn't matter, to many folks, but I kinda do like the Constitution and believe in what is does and does not allow.

Agree. 
Astute and compelling! 

[rothschild]

You can't possibly believe that the right to bear arms would ever be taken away. C'mon! There's more of a chance of me becoming a world class chef than there is for the 2A being taken away. 

I'm still waiting for you to address the questions I posed.

As for the amendment being "taken away", that's a red herring because the probability of it being taken away is very different from the probability of it being reinterpreted. Are there advocacy groups and people in politics that support reinterpretation? Yes, there are.