Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Mass Shootings Thread (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter squistion
- Start date
- Status
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Judging from posts in here, I would think that republicans would be all over mental health issues - it would probably take the heat off the guns a bit, and it would help out military vets a lot. Is this just a talking point, or is there some big road block for making this a primary focus?
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
[icon]
Insoxicated
No.
An AR-15 ban would ban AR platform pistols as well, as they use the same lower receiver, which is the part of the weapon that requires background checks.
Again, I encourage people to understand the topic before attempting to speak from a position of authority.
[icon]
Insoxicated
I'm not a Republican but I'd love to see more resources dedicated to mental health diagnosis and treatment... with a good chunk earmarked for vets.
Id also love police / feds to do a better job of looking into it teachers/family report that someone is behaving like someone who is going to shoot people.
Lot of these incidents have glaring warning signs in advance.
Last edited by a moderator:
-fish-
Footballguy
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
For sure. I am just posting that is has been talked about a lot, and after a lot of the talking and stat digging I became less convinced that addressing it from that side would do as much as we think it would. It probably needs to be a combo of really tackling the mental health side and the gun side.
Dickies
Footballguy
-fish-
Footballguy
I believe I just heard on the news that the Boulder shooter used one of these AR-15 handguns.
Dickies
Footballguy
-fish-
Footballguy
Based on Icon’s post, it wouldn’t matter. I’m not sure what the Boulder law that was just struck down said. I’ll have to look. But if there was no ban at the time he purchased the gun, so it doesn’t really matter. Closing loopholes in future legislation would.
-fish-
Footballguy
Mile High
Footballguy
Did the shooter buy his gun in Boulder? The ban was a city ban not state. The shooter was from Arvada.
Hey fish, tim and anyone else interested in the 2A government tyranny angle - I found this panel discussion. Pretty interesting. Well worth the hour. https://youtu.be/CvOOtFJvS84
Last edited by a moderator:
-fish-
Footballguy
no thanks. I’ve studied this stuff. I have a degree in law. I’ve read everything Hamilton and Madison wrote in the 2a, an I volunteered time to the organization that wrote Washington State’s gun control legislation. I don’t need to watch you video to know you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Hey you're the gun guy. But fish said you cant possibly ban handguns, at all. So?
Fine buy 80%s and finish yourself.
Pssst. My whole point is that they cant even get universal back ground checks passed. How the hell are the going to ban all these type of guns and then go get the 20+ million that are already out there? Hint- they arent.
Last edited by a moderator:
Executive Branch, House and slim majority in the Senate are owned by the blue team. Anything you wish to be done the next two years are owned by them. Dont hold your breath on any of it.
-fish-
Footballguy
Shula-holic
Footballguy
-fish-
Footballguy
You can’t. It would take a constitutional amendment. There’s no way that’s happening.
-fish-
Footballguy
As icon mentioned above, the component is that makes it an AR 15 defined under federal law as a rifle. I wasn’t aware of that, but it makes sense. Previous assault weapon legislation was defined based on components. Current legislation defines it differently.
No he didnt.
If you cant follow along I'm not going to be asking you for your autograph.
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
-fish-
Footballguy
Wrong icon post.
but knock yourself out:
https://www.atf.gov/file/55526/download
there was a cease and desist from the ATF that was suspended until after the election. I don’t think there’s been any action since
timschochet
Footballguy
In the end these arguments are always prevalent from the extreme minority on this issue:
1. I need my AR-15 because if the government becomes tyrannical, I can fight them off forever from the woods behind my backyard. (Oh and the definition of a tyrannical government is...um...one that tries to take away my AR-15!)
2. I don’t really need to buy an AR-15 because if I wanted to I could create my own with a small tool kit and a few household products! Therefore it’s dumb to try to take it away because I’ll own one anyhow.
3. Before the Nazis murdered all the Jews, they took their AR-15s away. If we ban them the same thing could happen here!
4. My uncle was killed by a hit and run driver. Why don’t we ban Toyotas?
5. I know an old lady in Idaho and 20 members of Antifa tried to break into her house. Luckily Grandma pulled out her M4 and wasted those BLM folks!
1. I need my AR-15 because if the government becomes tyrannical, I can fight them off forever from the woods behind my backyard. (Oh and the definition of a tyrannical government is...um...one that tries to take away my AR-15!)
2. I don’t really need to buy an AR-15 because if I wanted to I could create my own with a small tool kit and a few household products! Therefore it’s dumb to try to take it away because I’ll own one anyhow.
3. Before the Nazis murdered all the Jews, they took their AR-15s away. If we ban them the same thing could happen here!
4. My uncle was killed by a hit and run driver. Why don’t we ban Toyotas?
5. I know an old lady in Idaho and 20 members of Antifa tried to break into her house. Luckily Grandma pulled out her M4 and wasted those BLM folks!
Are you saying Icon contracticted himself, because I didnt see that.
I was going to say I didnt need to read that to say you dont know what you are talking about, but then I read it. I think you are ready to concede your red herring argument now. Yes?
No if you paid any attention at all to the discussion it's about whether if its even possible.
It's not.
Nothing to do with the random thoughts in your head as per usual.
Hey @-fish- - this is the post that started our debate. You stated that everything in this post was wrong, and in subsequent posts you cited Heller. I just read Heller from start to finish and it confirms what I said above. It goes on to say that the right to keep and bear arms isn’t just a collective right of militia members but an individual right as well. Here’s just one of many sections that support what I said above:
The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution. During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric. See, e.g., Letters from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981). John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress’s “command of the militia” could be used to create a “select militia,” or to have “no militia at all,” but also, as a separate concern, that “[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.” 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 508–509 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (hereinafter Documentary Hist.). Federalists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people. See, e.g., A Pennsylvanian III (Feb. 20, 1788), in The Origin of the Second Amendment 275, 276 (D. Young ed., 2d ed. 2001) (hereinafter Young); White, To the Citizens of Virginia, Feb. 22, 1788, in id., at 280, 281; A Citizen of America, (Oct. 10, 1787) in id., at 38, 40; Remarks on the Amendments to the federal Constitution, Nov. 7, 1788, in id., at 556. It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.
It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
some form of 1, 2, 4, and 5 has been brought up in either this thread or in the gun control thread.
unckeyherb
Footballguy
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
In your vast experience with the military and those who actually, make up, just how many of the rank and file do you think would fire on US citizens if they thought that there was an attack on the US Constitution being perpetrated by politicians?
Just how many machine gunners....tank commanders....riflemen, and pilots both active, reserve, and National Guard, currently sworn to support the Constitution (not a political party) do you think would support a tyrannical government?
Forget the politically motivated Generals....there are plenty of field grade officers who aren't.
I'm talking about the ones that YOU claim would quell any uprising.
You know absolutely nothing about it....so, sound off.
I say that if it got to that point, they are the ones who would lead any uprising.
Last edited by a moderator:
unckeyherb
Footballguy
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
unckeyherb
Footballguy
Not initially, I agree. But the sentiment is certainly there to limit purchases, restrict capacity, drastically elongate the process of buying a handgun moving forward.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Still not going to happen.
But if the is ridiculous to you, then yeah- there is probably a lot of people that hold that position. Those things are not close to a door to door gun grab though, but the fear of that is put out there to slow the process of the small changes.
FYI - my daughter’s ex-boyfriend did number two in my state where ar-15 are banned in about 30 minutes.
Bucsfan5493
Footballguy
Weren’t you just complaining last week with the Atlanta shooting about how they always rush to call these shootings racist before even getting the full facts? No care to wait now though because it fits the agenda for your side, right? It’s almost like you’re just as guilty of doing the same exact garbage you claim to hate.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Shocked at how this thread turned out.
unckeyherb
Footballguy
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I said there is not going to be a handgun grab, and you replied with "not initially".
I guess I should have been more clear - I am talking about people confiscating guns like the fear and slippery slope people seem to insinuate is going to happen. You could mean something else by "handgun grab".
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Exactly. Can we get a ruling if we are tired of having everything to do with race or not? Basically it's just constant posts about the crappy "MSM" from some people around here no matter how they handle it. I find it interesting that most don't reply to questions about where they get there info, it's just "MSM bad!".
Sarcasm to point out the hypocrisy and you jumped in head first. - Status
Similar threads
