Florida School Shooting At Least 17 Dead

Aleksandar37 said:
Serious question, has anybody in this entire thread called for banning guns outright?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about ITT, but I know some of the survivors have. Granted, I can't imagine going through what they did at that age so I think it's a pretty rational response given their circumstances.
 
ax1 said:
The 2nd Amendment doesnt restrict silencers and automatics. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Of course, they did not imagine the type of future weaponry at that time. Then again, the primary purpose of the 2nd is balance of powers. The Constitution has been amended of course since the original, but many amendments are arguably completely unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Article V gives the power for it to be amended. How is it unconstitutional if it's directly in the Constitution?
 
Aleksandar37 said:
He doesn't even live here lol
Click to expand...
You asked and I showed you it was. My comment was speaking on everyone claiming it not people specifically in this thread. It amazes me its all the news talked about today in Ohio.
 
Woody said:
I'm not sure about ITT, but I know some of the survivors have. Granted, I can't imagine going through what they did at that age so I think it's a pretty rational response given their circumstances.
Click to expand...

No, I was curious who the "rocket scientists" were. I have no doubt some survivors have, but they honestly shouldn't be answering questions right now or being paraded in front of the media like that. Get counseling and then if you feel like making statements, rock on,
 
But i honestly believe we all have to begin discussing solutions while sharing and building off others opinions. When speaking to fellow gun owners i think a huge scare is that it starts with limiting clip sizes and banning bump stocks then begins snowballing to an all out ban. California being a prime example. They are slowly trying to get rid of the right altogether from a 2nd amendment suppporters perspective. Not saying that is their intent but look at a time line on limitations they have imposed.
 
Everyone take a deep breath and deadlift so heavy you crap your pants. Then take a nice sleep. You’ll feel better.
 
Woody said:
This. Almost every amendment has restrictions. And you can't have a silencer, fully automatic, etc.

Banning guns isn't the solution anymore than arming teachers is. As jimbuick said, if you make schools a hard target, something else will be an easy target.
Click to expand...

Actually you can have a silencer and a fully automatic machine gun.
 
LiveToLift said:
But i honestly believe we all have to begin discussing solutions while sharing and building off others opinions. When speaking to fellow gun owners i think a huge scare is that it starts with limiting clip sizes and banning bump stocks then begins snowballing to an all out ban. Californis being a prime example. They are slowly trying to get rid of the right all together from a 2nd amendment suppporters perspective. Not saying that is their intent but look at a time line on limitations they have imposed.
Click to expand...

Could not agree more. There will always be people on both extremes, especially just following events like this. If the people in the middle don't work on a compromise, sooner or later the decision is going to be made for them. It's just near impossible when it gets to the level of politicians because of lobbyists, again on both sides.
 
The strong left seems to be going about it all wrong. I see at least 5 posts a day from my lefty friends saying noone should own a gun or just ban them all together why on earth does anyone need a gun. That type of approach will never bring progress.
 
ax1 said:
The 2nd Amendment doesnt restrict silencers and automatics. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Of course, they did not imagine the type of future weaponry at that time. Then again, the primary purpose of the 2nd is balance of powers. The Constitution has been amended of course since the original, but many amendments are arguably completely unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Sure, and the first amendment doesn't restrict hate speech or obscene material from freedom of speech but it's still a restriction. Basic restrictions don't cross the line to infringement.
 
ax1 said:
The 2nd Amendment doesnt restrict silencers and automatics. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Of course, they did not imagine the type of future weaponry at that time. Then again, the primary purpose of the 2nd is balance of powers. The Constitution has been amended of course since the original, but many amendments are arguably completely unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Considering the citizens had the same weaponry, minus canons typically, that the military had at the time to protect against a tyrannical government, what makes anyone think today is any different?
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Article V gives the power for it to be amended. How is it unconstitutional if it's directly in the Constitution?
Click to expand...

Of course it can be abused by the government, thats why we have the 2nd Amendment in the first place. Obviously, people havent taken advantage of that, they prioritize foodstamps, kardashions and scat porn. Its already too late.
 
Kind of scared to even ask and I may have been able to figure this out by sifting all 22 mobile pages but how does each poster in here stand on the 2nd amendment?

I personally have 3 firearms all purchased legally. Background checks were done and believe me they were thorough. My sperm donor has the same name as me so I was stalled as they wanted to be sure I was the JR applying with him having a wrap sheet. So its not like they just hand them out.
 
LiveToLift said:
Kind of scared to even ask and i may have been able to figure this out by sifting all 22 mobile pages but how does each poster in here stand on the 2nd amendment?

I personally have 3 firearms all purchased legally. Background checks were done and believe me they were thorough. My sperm donor has the same name as me so I was stalled as they wanted to be sure I was the JR applying with him having a wrap sheet. So its not like they just hand them out.
Click to expand...

I live in Texas lol
 
LiveToLift said:
But i honestly believe we all have to begin discussing solutions while sharing and building off others opinions. When speaking to fellow gun owners i think a huge scare is that it starts with limiting clip sizes and banning bump stocks then begins snowballing to an all out ban. California being a prime example. They are slowly trying to get rid of the right all together from a 2nd amendment suppporters perspective. Not saying that is their intent but look at a time line on limitations they have imposed.
Click to expand...

It is intent for some in California, as Dianne Fraknenstein famously said if she had 51% of the vote that Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in!
 
Woody said:
Sure, and the first amendment doesn't restrict hate speech or obscene material from freedom of speech but it's still a restriction. Basic restrictions don't cross the line to infringement.
Click to expand...

Its a restriction because people have allowed the government to infringe on the first Amendment.
 
LiveToLift said:
Kind of scared to even ask and I may have been able to figure this out by sifting all 22 mobile pages but how does each poster in here stand on the 2nd amendment?

I personally have 3 firearms all purchased legally. Background checks were done and believe me they were thorough. My sperm donor has the same name as me so I was stalled as they wanted to be sure I was the JR applying with him having a wrap sheet. So its not like they just hand them out.
Click to expand...

I hate guns, dont own any. I would be interested in having a carry on but Im scared to shyt of NYS government besides the fact its almost impossible to get a carry on license where I live.

Im very pro-2nd Amendment but I dont mind some regulation and background checks being that its a fully encrypted process preventing government from collecting a database and that regulation is limited only to violent offenders, maybe add in rapists and child abusers. Things such as nukes of course I dont want in the hands of everyday people as much as I am pro-balance of powers. Again though, Id prefer less Federal powers and greater State powers and balance by those means.
 
LiveToLift said:
Kind of scared to even ask and i may have been able to figure this out by sifting all 22 mobile pages but how does each poster in here stand on the 2nd amendment?

I personally have 3 firearms all purchased legally. Background checks were done and believe me they were thorough. My sperm donor has the same name as me so I was stalled as they wanted to be sure I was the JR applying with him having a wrap sheet. So its not like they just hand them out.
Click to expand...

I lived in Chicago for 37 years, so I've seen first hand (more than enough times first hand) that guns laws are not a magic solution. I've now lived in Texas for about 5 years and regularly go to backwoods Mississippi. We own guns and I've been around a lot of people who have a lot of guns. I'm for the 2nd amendment, but don't view it as limitless. I believe if gun owners keep abusing the system and pushing for bigger and louder or softer in the case of suppressors under the facade of hearing protection, then eventually the other side is going to push back.

People need to be responsible and stop doing stupid crap like walking around Walgreens with their AR just because they can. There are existing laws, but they're not being enforced. Maybe there needs to be more penalties for sellers that don't follow all of the rules. Until the NRA lobbying money gets pulled though, we can't ever have a honest conversation. Again, the fact that we have an amendment that prevents the CDC from doing any kind of study on gun violence because of lobbying by the NRA is insane to me.
 
ax1 said:
I hate guns, dont own any. I would be interested in having a carry on but Im scared to shyt of NYS government besides the fact its almost impossible to get a carry on license where I live.

Im very pro-2nd Amendment but I dont mind some regulation and background checks being that its a fully encrypted process preventing government from collecting a database and that regulation is limited only to violent offenders, maybe add in rapists and child abusers. Things such as nukes of course I dont want in the hands of everyday people as much as I am pro-balance of powers. Again though, Id prefer less Federal powers and greater State powers and balance by those means.
Click to expand...
See now that is logical talk here. In ohio it is violent offenders and drug charges that are worthy of felonies that prohibit someone from owning a gun. Im all for the additions you mention.

Just an after thought as im clueless on rape offenses i guess but is that not already included with violent offenders?
 
Aleksandar37 said:
I lived in Chicago for 37 years, so I've seen first hand (more than enough times first hand) that guns laws are not a magic solution. I've now lived in Texas for about 5 years and regularly go to backwoods Mississippi. We own guns and I've been around a lot of people who have a lot of guns. I'm for the 2nd amendment, but don't view it as limitless. I believe if gun owners keep abusing the system and pushing for bigger and louder or softer in the case of suppressors under the facade of hearing protection, then eventually the other side is going to push back.

People need to be responsible and stop doing stupid crap like walking around Walgreens with their AR just because they can. There are existing laws, but they're not being enforced. Maybe there needs to be more penalties for sellers that don't follow all of the rules. Until the NRA lobbying money gets pulled though, we can't ever have a honest conversation. Again, the fact that we have an amendment that prevents the CDC from doing any kind of study on gun violence because of lobbying by the NRA is insane to me.
Click to expand...

How many mass shootings have been committed with a supressor? How are they so much more dangerous? If Europe has such great gun laws that prevent mass shootings, then you should be on board with free use and ownership of them. They aren't restricted in many parts of europe.

ETA link
Invalid Link Removed
 
LiveToLift said:
See now that is logical talk here. In ohio it is violent offenders and drug charges that are worthy of felonies that prohibit someone from owning a gun. Im all for the additions you mention.

Just an after thought as im clueless on rape offenses i guess but is that not already included with violent offenders?
Click to expand...

A felony equals no more gun rights.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
I lived in Chicago for 37 years, so I've seen first hand (more than enough times first hand) that guns laws are not a magic solution. I've now lived in Texas for about 5 years and regularly go to backwoods Mississippi. We own guns and I've been around a lot of people who have a lot of guns. I'm for the 2nd amendment, but don't view it as limitless. I believe if gun owners keep abusing the system and pushing for bigger and louder or softer in the case of suppressors under the facade of hearing protection, then eventually the other side is going to push back.

People need to be responsible and stop doing stupid crap like walking around Walgreens with their AR just because they can. There are existing laws, but they're not being enforced. Maybe there needs to be more penalties for sellers that don't follow all of the rules. Until the NRA lobbying money gets pulled though, we can't ever have a honest conversation. Again, the fact that we have an amendment that prevents the CDC from doing any kind of study on gun violence because of lobbying by the NRA is insane to me.
Click to expand...
Great points and its nice to hear the mention of Chicago being a prime example of strict gun control not being the fix all.
 
youngandfree said:
A felony equals no more gun rights.
Click to expand...
This was my thought as well but my research in the last 10 mins after ax mentioning it shows that isnt necessarily true. ?*♂️?*♂️

Clearly states only violent offenders and drug trafficking or possesion felonies.
 
youngandfree said:
How many mass shootings have been committed with a supressor? How are they so much more dangerous? If Europe has such great gun laws that prevent mass shootings, then you should be on board with free use and ownership of them. They aren't restricted in many parts of europe.
Click to expand...

You're missing my point. I don't care if you have a suppressor. I'm saying that gun owners that want to keep pushing the envelope and drawing attention will sooner or later get attention they don't want.
 
LiveToLift said:
See now that is logical talk here. In ohio it is violent offenders and drug charges that are worthy of felonies that prohibit someone from owning a gun. Im all for the additions you mention.

Just an after thought as im clueless on rape offenses i guess but is that not already included with violent offenders?
Click to expand...

I just wanted to call out what I thought were some of the worst as I was posting that, but yes Id categorize them as very violent offenders.

Im not big on prohibiting non-violent drug offenders, but if they were involved with gangs/robberies, etc...then prohibit them. Im especially protective of marijuana users or steroids as much as I personally dislike all drugs including marijuana. I just just think this type of prohibition is just stepping too far, as long as drug users dont infringe on the rights of others. I support state regulation of drug/alcohol/tobacco advertising though. Im not an anarchist, lol.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
You're missing my point. I don't care if you have a suppressor. I'm saying that gun owners that want to keep pushing the envelope and drawing attention will sooner or later get attention they don't want.
Click to expand...

How is pushing to take supressors off of the NFA registry pushing the envelope to cause greater harm to the gun community? Again, how are they causing harm to the general public?
 
ax1 said:
I just wanted to call out what I thought were some of the worst as I was posting that, but yes Id categorize them as very violent offenders.

Im not big on prohibiting non-violent drug offenders, but if they were involved with gangs/robberies, etc...then prohibit them. Im especially protective of marijuana users or steroids as much as I personally dislike all drugs including marijuana. I just just think this type of prohibition is just stepping too far, as long as drug users dont infringe on the rights of others. I support state regulation of drug/alcohol/tobacco advertising though. Im not an anarchist, lol.
Click to expand...
Up until a few years ago I was pretty upset that you could not have a medical marijuana card if you had a ccw and vice versa. I no longer smoke but still hold the rights of users dear to my beliefs as I dont feel marijuana use is often a sign of an irresponsible person or a criminal. If someone can legally drink i dont see anyway to justify them not being able to legally smoke.
 
youngandfree said:
How is pushing to take supressors off of the NFA registry pushing the envelope to cause greater harm to the gun community? Again, how are they causing harm to the general public?
Click to expand...

Did I say they cause greater harm? I don't think I did. Again, I don't personally care if you have a suppressor.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Did I say they cause greater harm? I don't think I did. Again, I don't personally care if you have a suppressor.
Click to expand...

Once again noted how you ignore a legitimate question and go into dick mode. You specifically mentioned that gun owners pushing for the Hearing Protection Act are hurting their cause and will bring unwanted attention.
 
youngandfree said:
How is pushing to take supressors off of the NFA registry pushing the envelope to cause greater harm to the gun community? Again, how are they causing harm to the general public?
Click to expand...
Aleksandar37 said:
Did I say they cause greater harm? I don't think I did. Again, I don't personally care if you have a suppressor.
Click to expand...
I do believe you two started off bad and now it is altering the perception of what is being conveyed.
 
I completely understand what you are saying when you say gun owners pushing for legal supressors etc will invite unwanted attention.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
I lived in Chicago for 37 years, so I've seen first hand (more than enough times first hand) that guns laws are not a magic solution. I've now lived in Texas for about 5 years and regularly go to backwoods Mississippi. We own guns and I've been around a lot of people who have a lot of guns. I'm for the 2nd amendment, but don't view it as limitless. I believe if gun owners keep abusing the system and pushing for bigger and louder or softer in the case of suppressors under the facade of hearing protection, then eventually the other side is going to push back.

People need to be responsible and stop doing stupid crap like walking around Walgreens with their AR just because they can. There are existing laws, but they're not being enforced. Maybe there needs to be more penalties for sellers that don't follow all of the rules. Until the NRA lobbying money gets pulled though, we can't ever have a honest conversation. Again, the fact that we have an amendment that prevents the CDC from doing any kind of study on gun violence because of lobbying by the NRA is insane to me.
Click to expand...

You get called out on one of your statements and you can't back it up. You just deflect and attack.
 
Pretty much right now although it isnt making many happy gun owners should just be pleased with have what we have. But I know many who feel if things stay quiet and "happy", with so many abuses of guns taking place the thought often is the rights will start going backwards.
 
youngandfree said:
Once again noted how you ignore a legitimate question and go into dick mode. You specifically mentioned that gun owners pushing for the Hearing Protection Act are hurting their cause and will bring unwanted attention.
Click to expand...

No, when I want to be a dick, there's much mores of these ******. I simply don't care to explain it to you several ways, so here's my best shot. Suppressors are the kind of crap that will draw unwanted attention from groups that will use the perception of suppressors to make a wider grab for gun control in general. Do you think that everybody views suppressors as a good thing only to be used for good? Not everybody making decisions on our laws bases those decisions on facts or data. So again, if people don't want to compromise and keep waving their 2nd amendment in the face of people that don't agree with them, then eventually there will be push back. Disclaimer: as I've stated, I'm pro 2nd amendment and not saying I'm one of the ones pushing back. So if you want to suppress, suppress away and ignore my warnings.
 
youngandfree said:
So you explain your opinion on this. How does that even make sense?
Click to expand...
I kind of touched base on it with my follow up but the strong left and most gun opposers hate the idea of anything added to us gun owners rights. So to keep from strong lobbying against gun rights it may just be a time where being happy where we are is a smart option.

Like i mentioned it doesnt mean i feel this to be my full opinion but i do understand the concept.
 
youngandfree said:
You get called out on one of your statements and you can't back it up. You just deflect and attack.
Click to expand...

I'm not attacking you! But I can only explain it so many ways before I call you a name and everybody gets mad at me again. Real life involves picking your battles. If gun owners want to keep poking the stick, don't be surprised is all that I'm saying. You've already complained about antifa getting violent...imagine that, but anti-gun.
 
Oh and if you were asking my opinion on suppressors personally i would love them being legal for the protection stand point. I shoot quite often whether it be my AR, 300 or my hand gun the sound even with different forms of hearing protection still stays with me hours after a shoot.

But I feel the anti gun folks have a strong case against them. They will lobby the main purpose would be to be used in violent attacks to keep from being detected.
 
ax1 said:
The 2nd Amendment doesnt restrict silencers and automatics. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Of course, they did not imagine the type of future weaponry at that time. Then again, the primary purpose of the 2nd is balance of powers. The Constitution has been amended of course since the original, but many amendments are arguably completely unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Amendments cannot be unconstitutional since they are part of the constitution.
Aleksandar37 said:
Article V gives the power for it to be amended. How is it unconstitutional if it's directly in the Constitution?
Click to expand...
This.
LiveToLift said:
Oh and if you were asking my opinion on suppressors personally i would love them being legal for the protection stand point. I shoot quite often whether it be my AR, 300 or my hand gun the sound even with different forms of hearing protection still stays with me hours after a shoot.

But I feel the anti gun folks have a strong case against them. They will lobby the main purpose would be to be used in violent attacks to keep from being detected.
Click to expand...
They really don't. At all. The primary argument(especially from politicians) is almost entirely based upon ignorance. Movies give this false perception of what "silencers" do. It really doesn't lower the Db level that much, and would still require a person to wear their usual hearing protection. The big thing for it is that with ear plugs or muffs, hearing can still be permanently damaged because they don't make a big enough difference, but with both a suppressor and your usual earpro, you could realistically avoid that damage (or significantly reduce it).

See below for a fairly comprehensive outline of pros/cons.

Invalid Link Removed
 
Aleksandar37 said:
There are restrictions on the 1st amendment, which sets a precedent for the 2nd. Actually there already are restrictions on the 2nd as well. Setting restrictions on some guns doesn't restrict the right to bear arms which is what the constitution guarantees.
Click to expand...
Setting restrictions on which arms is very literally a restriction on the 2a. It isn't really opinion. Whether or not Americans are OK with those restrictions is another issue entirely, but it is disingenuous to state that it isn't a restriction.
 
youngandfree said:
Once again noted how you ignore a legitimate question and go into dick mode. You specifically mentioned that gun owners pushing for the Hearing Protection Act are hurting their cause and will bring unwanted attention.
Click to expand...

I don't think he went into dick mode. Almost everything in politics is a pendulum.
 
jimbuick said:
Setting restrictions on which arms is very literally a restriction on the 2a. It isn't really opinion. Whether or not Americans are OK with those restrictions is another issue entirely, but it is disingenuous to state that it isn't a restriction.
Click to expand...

It's very much a restriction, but not sure it's an infringement. Not allowing fully automatics doesn't do away with the purpose of the 2A. In fact, the framers couldn't have contemplated the 2A allowing fully automatics because they didn't exist. Almost every right in the constitution has some limitation. It's not two sentences of endless power. They have to be interpreted and modified for current society. What works for the 1800s doesn't really translate to modern America.
 
Invalid Link Removed

We need pretend light sabers and laser blasters.
pew-pew... I got you.


The second amendment; written when it took somebody 1-2 minutes to load a musket with one bullet...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top