Shooting at Texas church (1 Viewer)

[Politician Spock]

It's a closer comparison than some foreign country we would just steam roll.

The complexity of a serious rebellion in the US would have so many different issues we can't even imagine how it would actually play out.  Again, the 2nd Amendment has its place and it belongs.  You can try some other concepts to reduce gun violence, but no way is it going away and I don't think it should.

Let's go with your point of view on this (not that I agree with it, but even the merits of it aren't very applicable).

Do you think those that wrote the 2nd amendment in the context of 18th century issues would want that amendment in the context of 21st century issues?

I know you're going to say yes, because you don't want to change your mind on this issue. But I think that the context of "arms" in the 18th century and the context of "arms" in the 21st century is so vastly different that it's unlikely the 2nd amendment would be worded that way it is, or quite possibly wouldn't even exist at all. 

People who aren't even willing to question whether the 2nd amendment should be abolished are valuing their right to kill a tyrant over the lives of people being killed by gun violence. 

Ooooohhhh..... a potential tyrant..... ooooohhh..... boogey man...... be scared.... be scared of tyranny..... oooooh.

Meanwhile, we're moments away from the next mass shooting because of your precious 2nd amendment. 

 

[[icon]]

your precious 2nd amendment.

Damn right. 

 

[Northern Voice]

If that is what you think then you don't understand the issue at all.  The entire US Constitution is built around keeping the government in check.  How many decisions that are made or not made based on that is immeasurable.  It's not about some hypothetical standoff war, but about a billion little decisions over the centuries of our country's existence. 

That's such a cop out.

Decisions that were made in the past shouldn't stop a society from being able to take an honest look at where their country is headed and examine if some of those decisions were wrong.

 

[Politician Spock]

Damn right. 

Why do you hate people? They just wanted to go to church, and eat a potluck later.

 

[[icon]]

Why do you hate people? They just wanted to go to church, and eat a potluck later.

 oh cmon 

 

[belljr]

Our military can't squash ISIS and a battle on US soil against its own citizens wouldn't be any easier.

 if we didn't care about civilian casualties this that mess would be over 

 

[Sabertooth]

 if we didn't care about civilian casualties this that mess would be over 

If we didn't care about civilians casualties, we'd be evil as ####.  No thanks.  I do care about people who live outside my country.  They are people.  Not cattle or widgets.  People.  

 

[parasaurolophus]

Let's go with your point of view on this (not that I agree with it, but even the merits of it aren't very applicable).

Do you think those that wrote the 2nd amendment in the context of 18th century issues would want that amendment in the context of 21st century issues?

I know you're going to say yes, because you don't want to change your mind on this issue. But I think that the context of "arms" in the 18th century and the context of "arms" in the 21st century is so vastly different that it's unlikely the 2nd amendment would be worded that way it is, or quite possibly wouldn't even exist at all. 

People who aren't even willing to question whether the 2nd amendment should be abolished are valuing their right to kill a tyrant over the lives of people being killed by gun violence. 

Ooooohhhh..... a potential tyrant..... ooooohhh..... boogey man...... be scared.... be scared of tyranny..... oooooh.

Meanwhile, we're moments away from the next mass shooting because of your precious 2nd amendment. 

By tyrant do you mean the criminal that breaks into your house at 2am or are you only ranting about gov't takeover kind of stuff?

 

[Jayrod]

That's such a cop out.

Decisions that were made in the past shouldn't stop a society from being able to take an honest look at where their country is headed and examine if some of those decisions were wrong.

It isn't a cop out and isn't a decision I take lightly.  Just removing freedoms for protection is the cop out, IMO.

Mass shootings, are awful but are still extremely rare whereas political upheaval is not, historically speaking.  I think people who are for repealing the 2nd amendment are being reactionary and shortsighted. 

 

[belljr]

Annnnnnd we've got the usual suspects ignoring easy approaches that would have legitimate results... in favor of beating their heads against an immovable object. 

Here's a legitimate fact: The 2nd amendment is going nowhere. Period. Ever. Gun ownership is only increasing. When states have attempted forced registration or confiscation, compliance was in the single digits and law enforcement openly defied enforcement. 

So... you can beat your head on a wall that's going nowhere and get nothing done.... or you can take easy steps that will save lives. 

Your choice... but that's the reality. In any event, rational discourse has left this thread and we are now down to the usual "lines drawn in the sand, it's my way or the highway" so It's time to tap out. 

This confuses me.

In NJ you don't get a gun legally without registering it 

And why is this a bad law?

In New Jersey, it is illegal to possess any magazine that is capable of accepting more than 15 rounds for semi-automatic rifles/pistols and 6 rounds for semi-automatic shotguns. Police officers may possess these magazines for both personal and official purposes. FFLs may also possess these magazines (N.J.S.A 2C:39-1(y

And I'm not going to pretend know a ton about guns BUT does the Colt Ar15 consist of all AR15s?

They are banned here also

 

[Northern Voice]

It isn't a cop out and isn't a decision I take lightly.  Just removing freedoms for protection is the cop out, IMO.

Mass shootings, are awful but are still extremely rare whereas political upheaval is not, historically speaking.  I think people who are for repealing the 2nd amendment are being reactionary and shortsighted. 

There's more than one mass casualty event in the United States per day now and hasn't been an armed revolution in centuries. You go with that though.

 

[belljr]

If we didn't care about civilians casualties, we'd be evil as ####.  No thanks.  I do care about people who live outside my country.  They are people.  Not cattle or widgets.  People.  

Oh I agree.   I may have worded that wrong.  My point was the ISIS problem is tough because they are not just sitting in a base somewhere they are literally using and among innocent people

 

[Jayrod]

There's more than one mass casualty event in the United States per day now and hasn't been an armed revolution in centuries. You go with that though.

Well, since we are talking about guns and the 2nd amendment, it should probably be limited to mass shootings.  That guy driving a Home Depot truck in NYC didn't even fire a single round and would have been unaffected by a ban on guns.

This link is more representative to the conversation -->https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/

And your statement about armed revolutions is woefully incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions

Nice touch with the snarky last sentence, though.

 

[Politician Spock]

 oh cmon 

It's not funny. I'm quite serious. Why are these victims simply collateral deaths in your war against a theoretical US tyrant?

These victims were people. People are precious. Your 2nd amendment is not. Saying "damn right" as a response to "precious 2nd amendment" shows how little regard you have for people at all. 

How many more people have to die due to your "precious 2nd amendment"? 

 

[Politician Spock]

By tyrant do you mean the criminal that breaks into your house at 2am or are you only ranting about gov't takeover kind of stuff?

I'm not the one who brought "tyrant" into the discussion. Ask those who did. 

 

[Politician Spock]

It isn't a cop out and isn't a decision I take lightly.  Just removing freedoms for protection is the cop out, IMO.

Mass shootings, are awful but are still extremely rare whereas political upheaval is not, historically speaking.  I think people who are for repealing the 2nd amendment are being reactionary and shortsighted. 

 

[Sabertooth]

Oh I agree.   I may have worded that wrong.  My point was the ISIS problem is tough because they are not just sitting in a base somewhere they are literally using and among innocent people

I agree.  

The problem also, is that if you take out ISIS, somebody else rises in their place.  Started with Bush, was exacerbated by Obama, and now it's even worse with Trump.  Should have kept our noses out of the Middle East.  But when your country is in the pocket of Haliburton, this just isn't going to happen. 

 

[Northern Voice]

Well, since we are talking about guns and the 2nd amendment, it should probably be limited to mass shootings.  That guy driving a Home Depot truck in NYC didn't even fire a single round and would have been unaffected by a ban on guns.

This link is more representative to the conversation -->https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/

And your statement about armed revolutions is woefully incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions

Nice touch with the snarky last sentence, though.

Armed revolutions in America, guy. Anyway, no point continuing the discussion, you've long ago decided you're right to fight a theoretical tyrant is more valuable than the right of innocent people to live without fear of being gunned to death at the movies, church, concerts, etc....

Your paragraph that started the discussion says it all. You've accepted a violent society where the right to arms is more important than the innocent lives it costs. Or as you put it:

The second amendment is a defense against governmental tyranny.  The cost of that freedom is a dangerous society with more gun deaths.  It is a trade off that this country has agreed to accept since it's inception.

 

[msommer]

At active shooter training right now. 

Imitate Brave Sir Robin?

 

[Politician Spock]

Here's a legitimate fact: The 2nd amendment is going nowhere. Period. Ever.

I remember back in 2004 gay marriage becoming legal seemed impossible. 

11 years later, it happened.

How hard something is to accomplish is not a reason to not pursue it.

It's time for people to change their minds about how they feel about the 2nd amendment, the same way they changed their minds about gay marriage.

 

[msommer]

Annnnnnd we've got the usual suspects ignoring easy approaches that would have legitimate results... in favor of beating their heads against an immovable object. 

Here's a legitimate fact: The 2nd amendment is going nowhere. Period. Ever. Gun ownership is only increasing. When states have attempted forced registration or confiscation, compliance was in the single digits and law enforcement openly defied enforcement. 

So... you can beat your head on a wall that's going nowhere and get nothing done.... or you can take easy steps that will save lives. 

Your choice... but that's the reality. In any event, rational discourse has left this thread and we are now down to the usual "lines drawn in the sand, it's my way or the highway" so It's time to tap out. 

You know what will really shut up the usual suspects?

Get some effing results with your low hanging fruits

 

[msommer]

By tyrant do you mean the criminal that breaks into your house at 2am or are you only ranting about gov't takeover kind of stuff?

You got that wrong. Jayrod brought up the tyrant, Icon thinks the 2nd amendment is sacred and Spock is mocking them

 

[msommer]

That's such a cop out.

Decisions that were made in the past shouldn't stop a society from being able to take an honest look at where their country is headed and examine if some of those decisions were wrong.

Indeed.

Otherwise (hyperbolically) there'd still be public slave auctions in the South

 

[msommer]

Our military can't squash ISIS and a battle on US soil against its own citizens wouldn't be any easier.

Excuse me?

Have you checked out what has happened lately in Syria and Iraq. And whether there were American divisions involved in that?

Or are you stating that the US military is bound to lose every asymetrical warfare situation it gets into because?

 

[[icon]]

You know what will really shut up the usual suspects?

Get some effing results with your low hanging fruits

Give me the magic button for force states/military to comply with NICS and I'll push it GB. Otherwise... folks are going to have to take 10 mins out of their day to write their lawmakers to request it. Unfortunately most people are too lazy to do so.... so NICS isn't getting fixed... and there will be another guy like this one who shouldn't have been able to purchase a gun, but did. 

Low hanging fruit still requires a little work to harvest....

 

[msommer]

Give me the magic button for force states/military to comply with NICS and I'll push it GB. Otherwise... folks are going to have to take 10 mins out of their day to write their lawmakers to request it. Unfortunately most people are too lazy to do so.... so NICS isn't getting fixed... and there will be another guy like this one who shouldn't have been able to purchase a gun, but did. 

Low hanging fruit still requires a little work to harvest....

Proof is in the pudding. You are certainly better placed than me to affect change in the US

 

[msommer]

It isn't a cop out and isn't a decision I take lightly.  Just removing freedoms for protection is the cop out, IMO.

Mass shootings, are awful but are still extremely rare whereas political upheaval is not, historically speaking.  I think people who are for repealing the 2nd amendment are being reactionary and shortsighted. 

When was the last time a regime change about by a popular, violent uprising without military backing?

 

[[icon]]

I remember back in 2004 gay marriage becoming legal seemed impossible. 

11 years later, it happened.

How hard something is to accomplish is not a reason to not pursue it.

It's time for people to change their minds about how they feel about the 2nd amendment, the same way they changed their minds about gay marriage.

Taking away constitutionally protected rights that are held very dearly by many is a different animal than granting equal rights with an existing precedent (desegregation).

Almost 3/4 of the population is against banning handguns, let alone firearms altogether (latest gallup poll). As many people think we should better enforce current laws instead of making new ones.

I respect your dedication to your goal, but you're fighting a losing battle. Spend your energy on better enforcing current laws (NICS mandate), and common sense reform (Universal background checks into a healthy NICS, ban rapid-fire-enhancements like bump stops, etc)... you might see results. 

 

[Politician Spock]

Give me the magic button for force states/military to comply with NICS and I'll push it GB. Otherwise... folks are going to have to take 10 mins out of their day to write their lawmakers to request it. Unfortunately most people are too lazy to do so.... so NICS isn't getting fixed... and there will be another guy like this one who shouldn't have been able to purchase a gun, but did. 

Low hanging fruit still requires a little work to harvest....

Thanks for adding fuel to my argument that the only way to produce change in this issue is to end consumer gun production in this country. 

As long as we're producing guns for public consumption, no laws are going to stop what's going on. 

 

[Black Box]

That's an apples to oranges comparison.

In the middle east we are supporting the entities they are attacking. We provide just enough support to make them lose. We don't devote all of our resources to it. And there's also the issue of our resources being turned around and used against us, because sometimes we temporarily consider an enemy to be a friend, because they are the enemy of our enemy. All in all, it's just one big cluster####.  

If the US is the target of the attack, resources would not be limited. And there would be no questionable resource deals. The US would know exactly what they are doing. 

We must be thinking of different things.

I'm thinking of the people who are armed and are actively fighting against our military in the middle east. Like ISIS. Seems like we should be able to just roll in with our military and put down a few people who are fighting against us, right? But it hardly plays out that way.

My only point is that just saying our military is an auto-win versus an armed populace is.... misleading at best. It is a much more complex scenario than that, and I don't think anyone can really accurately predict how a hypothetical armed US citizen uprising versus a hypothetical tyrannical US governmental military would play out. Some see the 2nd Amendment as a protection against that, and I don't think you can discount that with a waving of your hands. Others see the risk of that scenario being so small that they would do away with the 2nd. I think both sides are reasonable positions to take IMHO.

 

[Politician Spock]

Taking away constitutionally protected rights that are held very dearly by many is a different animal than granting equal rights with an existing precedent (desegregation).

Almost 3/4 of the population is against banning handguns, let alone firearms altogether (latest gallup poll). As many people think we should better enforce current laws instead of making new ones.

I respect your dedication to your goal, but you're fighting a losing battle. Spend your energy on better enforcing current laws (NICS mandate), and common sense reform (Universal background checks into a healthy NICS, ban rapid-fire-enhancements like bump stops, etc)... you might see results. 

It's a hard battle, but it's worth fighting. The victims would, but they're.... you know... dead. 

 

[Black Box]

I still don't understand why one can't do what icon is suggesting AND work against the 2nd. They aren't mutually exclusive positions to take.

In fact, I would think that people wanting to repeal the 2nd would WANT to enact icon's proposal. If it works, great! We keep guns out of people's hands who shouldn't have them, which should correlate to fewer gun deaths. If it fails, it lends more weight to needing to repeal the 2nd.

 

[[icon]]

Proof is in the pudding. You are certainly better placed than me to affect change in the US

I have done my part... I hope others do as well. 

 

[Politician Spock]

We must be thinking of different things.

I'm thinking of the people who are armed and are actively fighting against our military in the middle east. Like ISIS. Seems like we should be able to just roll in with our military and put down a few people who are fighting against us, right? But it hardly plays out that way.

My only point is that just saying our military is an auto-win versus an armed populace is.... misleading at best. It is a much more complex scenario than that, and I don't think anyone can really accurately predict how a hypothetical armed US citizen uprising versus a hypothetical tyrannical US governmental military would play out. Some see the 2nd Amendment as a protection against that, and I don't think you can discount that with a waving of your hands. Others see the risk of that scenario being so small that they would do away with the 2nd. I think both sides are reasonable positions to take IMHO.

If you're going to just ignore what I said, then I'm not going to converse with you. I already responded to the bolded. 

But I will add to the differences I already mentioned.... Who is in charge in the middle east when we're done? Assisting another entity is not the same as defending this country. And, oh by they way, my link

What we are doing over there is a lot different than if US citizens tried to overthrow the US government. 

 

[[icon]]

Thanks for adding fuel to my argument that the only way to produce change in this issue is to end consumer gun production in this country. 

As long as we're producing guns for public consumption, no laws are going to stop what's going on. 

good lord you're off your rocker in here.... 

Thankfully my carry pistol is Austrian made. Cheers GB. We shouldn't talk about this topic. 

 

[Politician Spock]

I still don't understand why one can't do what icon is suggesting AND work against the 2nd. They aren't mutually exclusive positions to take.

In fact, I would think that people wanting to repeal the 2nd would WANT to enact icon's proposal. If it works, great! We keep guns out of people's hands who shouldn't have them, which should correlate to fewer gun deaths. If it fails, it lends more weight to needing to repeal the 2nd.

Because even ICON is hinting in his posts that it won't work. 

 

[Sabertooth]

I remember back in 2004 gay marriage becoming legal seemed impossible. 

11 years later, it happened.

How hard something is to accomplish is not a reason to not pursue it.

It's time for people to change their minds about how they feel about the 2nd amendment, the same way they changed their minds about gay marriage.

The same way Trump went from being a Democrat to being a "Republican".

 

[Politician Spock]

The same way Trump went from being a Democrat to being a "Republican".

Not sure it's the same, but it does show anything can change. 

 

[Black Box]

If you're going to just ignore what I said, then I'm not going to converse with you. I already responded to the bolded. 

But I will add to the differences I already mentioned.... Who is in charge in the middle east when we're done? Assisting another entity is not the same as defending this country. And, oh by they way, my link

What we are doing over there is a lot different than if US citizens tried to overthrow the US government. 

Of course there are differences. There are no perfect analogies to what we are talking about.

I'm just trying to make the point that the US military fighting against armed civilians doesn't seem like an easy thing to me. Guerilla warfare is a thing, after all.

 

[msommer]

Of course there are differences. There are no perfect analogies to what we are talking about.

I'm just trying to make the point that the US military fighting against armed civilians doesn't seem like an easy thing to me. Guerilla warfare is a thing, after all.

If they can't handle it, no one likely can (and some actually both can and do, even if not with perfect records)

 

[Epic Problem]

good lord you're insane.... 

Thankfully my carry pistol is Austrian made. Cheers GB. We shouldn't talk about this topic. 

You with your Austrian made penis extens....um I mean pistol are the exception, not the rule, right? Is me blindly speculating that most 'murica gun nuts are lugging around 'murican steel off base?

 

[Black Box]

Because even ICON is hinting in his posts that it won't work. 

I guess I'm not seeing those hints. It seems to me he thinks it will make a difference and lead to decreased gun deaths. And if you are for the repealing of the 2nd Amendment, this seems like a no-brainer for someone in your position. But maybe I am missing something.

 

[modogg]

Is it not possible anymore to have a rational conversation and not put politics into it. This thread seems to have taken a nose-dive quickly with the same old arguments (and I guess with these mass shootings occurring on a regular basis now maybe that is why), and it really seems hard for people to have an actual productive conversation once politics get involved.

 

[[icon]]

You with your Austrian made penis extens....um I mean pistol are the exception, not the rule, right? Is me blindly speculating that most 'murica gun nuts are lugging around 'murican steel off base?

The obsession with other men's genitalia by anti-gun crowd is still unsettling no matter how often it rears it's ugly head. 

NTTAWTT  

 

[[icon]]

I guess I'm not seeing those hints. It seems to me he thinks it will make a difference and lead to decreased gun deaths. And if you are for the repealing of the 2nd Amendment, this seems like a no-brainer for someone in your position. But maybe I am missing something.

Path A: 95% success rate at theoretically reducing mass shootings by a reasonable degree
Path B: 1% success rate at theoretically reducing mass shootings by a lot

Why would anyone choose to only walk down path B if you could walk down both? Figure it's hedging your bets... no?  So strange. 

 

[Epic Problem]

The obsession with other men's genitalia by anti-gun crowd is still unsettling no matter how often it rears it's ugly head. 

NTTAWTT  

There's no obsession with genitalia, the obsession is with one's need to compensate for some sort of shortcoming. Genitalia is just the easy reference point. If you'd like, I'll just call you a wimp that needs a sidearm to hide behind if things go sideways.

NTTAWWT

 

[Northern Voice]

Path A: 95% success rate at theoretically reducing mass shootings by a reasonable degree
Path B: 1% success rate at theoretically reducing mass shootings by a lot

Why would anyone choose to only walk down path B if you could walk down both? Figure it's hedging your bets... no?  So strange. 

Who is actually arguing against path A? I think there are a lot of people, myself included who think path A is a reasonable first step but not nearly enough in the big picture.

 

[[icon]]

Who is actually arguing against path A? I think there are a lot of people, myself included who think path A is a reasonable first step but not nearly enough in the big picture.

I sure seem to be feeling a lot of pushback in here, and we haven't seen enough of a push from the public to get A passed yet... sooooo....  

 

[Northern Voice]

I sure seem to be feeling a lot of pushback in here, and we haven't seen enough of a push from the public to get A passed yet... sooooo....  

There's pushback saying its a bad idea or is the pushback people saying its not far enough and the 2nd amendment needs to be looked at as well.

It seems to me, that you are the one who thinks that pursuing path A exclusively is sufficient and we shouldn't even talk about path B (2nd A), while most people who support pursuing looking at path B would be default be in favour of path A as well.

But you'd rather throw your hands up and say path B is impossible, so let's just do path A.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

You with your Austrian made penis extens....um I mean pistol are the exception, not the rule, right? Is me blindly speculating that most 'murica gun nuts are lugging around 'murican steel off base?

I own more handguns manufactured by an Austrian company than any other kind.