🇺🇸 Discussion: Guns, The Second Amendment, NRA - Part II

[Legendver2]

I'm sure he will find some way to tie this into one of his agendas.

probably the bf/husband wasn't alpha enough or something about destroying the patriarchy or some bs like that

 

[DarthSkywalker]

These domestic situations are exactly why gun control is so important. These situations, while on a smaller scale can shatter lives all the same. And it happens far, far too often.

 

[squeekness]

probably the bf/husband wasn't alpha enough or something about destroying the patriarchy or some bs like that

Oh no. It would be that she went after him because was trying to get her to get rid of her guns.

 

[squeekness]

Well the thing is scary on other levels. We have security here but they aren't armed. We have no one here to take down an active shooter. Will that change now? Nobody checks our bags in and out and we all have good sized lunch bags. A number of us could be dead by the time SWAT got here. I'm sure most work places are like that.

 

[Mike5575]

For anyone that contends the NRA doesn't have a role in the inability to prevent some of these mass shootings, you really need to look into some of the crap their lobby pulls and how they get ATF to operate like it's still the 1970's:

I'm literally showing you a prime example of how the government is hampered from being able to do any kind of meaningful enforcement.

I reread the article, but there is an obvious disconnect between of your claim that the ATF is being hampered from preventing mass shootings and what the article says. Put simply, these kids aren't buying their guns off the black market. We know how these shooters are getting their weapons. They passed background checks from a FFL. The article you cited seems to be in response to Sandy Hook. Ok. How would gun trace data or universal background checks prevent Adam Lanza from killing his mother with her own weapons that she legally purchased and then proceed to go to school and commence a killing spree? Universal background checks would require a gun registry, and even then would largely be unenforceable. We wouldn't find out about any illegal sales unless they show up at a crime scene AFTER a murder.

It's also interesting to note that while our gun control laws have loosened and firearm ownership has skyrocketed, violent crime has been on the decline since the early 90s.

Please support your NRA-sponsored, fear mongering claim with evidence.

For the record, my cars, home, and business are all registered with the government. None of them have been confiscated.

Lol. It's called history. There are numerous examples throughout histroy, and even some modern cases in which gun registration does lead to confiscation. Nazi Germany is the most stark example. Then there are more recent examples such as Canada and England.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/12/canadian-news-anchor-warns-gun-registration-brings/

Canadian news anchor Brian Lilley has blunt words of warning for the United States: Gun “registration will lead to confiscation.” And that’s a first-person perspective.

“If you don’t believe me,” he said, in a report from The Blaze, “just look at what’s happened here.”

Mr. Lilley made the comments during a newscast earlier this week, while telling the story of a man who was arrested and charged for using a firearm to defend himself from four men who were bombing his house in Canada, The Blaze reported.

“We are at a state in Canada where they don’t want you using firearms for anything. Ever,” Mr. Lilley reportedly said. “That’s the push. And as we look at what’s happening in the United States, that’s what’s happening.”

The news anchor wrapped: Americans should resist President Obama’s push for a national registration that lists all gun owners, The Blaze reported.

“If such a database comes to fruition,” he warned, in The Blaze, “it will lead to confiscation.”

Here's a good "NRA fear mongering propaganda" video on gun confiscation in the U.K:

[YT]TkS2BRoCd2I[/YT]

We as humans are registered with the Government and the Right want everyone to be legally registered to exercise their RIGHT to legally vote. So, why is it wrong to register guns to exercise your RIGHT to legally bear arms. That’s hypocrisy. You can’t have it both ways.

I’m pro gun registry. There’s no reason anyone can legitimately and legally oppose that.

It's not hypocrisy. There are limitations on who can vote just as their are limitations on who can obtain firearms. The purpose of voting registration is to prevent fraud. It's not the same thing with owning firearms.

Giving the government with all the information it needs to seize people's guns in this country coupled with the ever increasing demand from gun control advocates to repeal the 2nd amendment is all the reason I need to oppose gun registration.

 

[chaseter]

The purpose of a gun registry is to prevent criminal activity. A gun illegally sold to a criminal that is then used in a crime is a helluva lot worse than an illegal alien voting. Both need registries.

If you can seize and deport people here illegally, you can seize and deport illegally held weapons. For that, a registry is needed. You should be more worried that the Government knows exactly where you live, where you work, and what vehicles you own. The Government knowing what guns you own should be the least of your worries. At that point, you can live out your fantasy of fighting the tyrannical Government coming to get your guns.

Sensible reform coupled with increased mental health awareness, action, and treatment will decrease gun killing sprees. We can’t stop ALL...sadly that is the price of freedom.

 

[ComicBookNerd]

The purpose of a gun registry is to prevent criminal activity. A gun illegally sold to a criminal that is then used in a crime is a helluva lot worse than an illegal alien voting. Both need registries.

If you can seize and deport people here illegally, you can seize and deport illegally held weapons. For that, a registry is needed. You should be more worried that the Government knows exactly where you live, where you work, and what vehicles you own. The Government knowing what guns you own should be the least of your worries. At that point, you can live out your fantasy of fighting the tyrannical Government coming to get your guns.

Sensible reform coupled with increased mental health awareness, action, and treatment will decrease gun killing sprees. We can’t stop ALL...sadly that is the price of freedom.

It won’t reduce mass shootings, but I think all guns should have a ballistic test entered into a database. That way they don’t have to recover the gun to match it with the bullet(s) used in the homicide.

 

[TheCardPlayer]

Youtube shooter was identified as Nasim Aghdam. She was a vegan (Extremely vegan) vlogger, who compared meat eaters to Hitler. Her videos being filtered, lead to this rampage.

Why did this crazy person have access to firearms? Her videos are legit terrifying. She was off in the head.

 

[Aximili86]

Do we know what type of gun she used here? They said she shot 50 or so rounds, but it's interesting they don't seem to be mentioning whether it was a longgun or handgun, at least on the network broadcasts.

Probably pretty prudent if we're talking about gun "control". If it was a pistol, we're not banning those.

But yes, this is a crazy-person issue.

 

[Mike5575]

Do we know what type of gun she used here? They said she shot 50 or so rounds, but it's interesting they don't seem to be mentioning whether it was a longgun or handgun, at least on the network broadcasts.

Probably pretty prudent if we're talking about gun "control". If it was a pistol, we're not banning those.

But yes, this is a crazy-person issue.

According to one source, she had a "huge handgun." Not very specific, but at least it wasn't an AR.

 

[Texas Zombie]

probably the bf/husband wasn't alpha enough or something about destroying the patriarchy or some bs like that

****, a gun makes alpha irrelevant, there’s a reason they call it the ultimate equalizer. Honestly he probably cheated on her so she shot him.

 

[chaseter]

Parkland students are upset over their new, mandated clear backpacks...

I’m sorry kids but choose your battles. You wanted to be safer, that includes sacrificing some of your personal liberties. Do we not teach political science in schools anymore? Safety vs Liberty. You can’t demand everyone else change and not change yourself. It’s why I have to get a body scan at an airport now.

 

[Kelly]

Parkland students are upset over their new, mandated clear backpacks...

I’m sorry kids but choose your battles. You wanted to be safer, that includes sacrificing some of your personal liberties. Do we not teach political science in schools anymore? Safety vs Liberty. You can’t demand everyone else change and not change yourself. It’s why I have to get a body scan at an airport now.

I think they have chosen their battles, declaring their dissatisfaction with the rule on Twitter while FOLLOWING THE RULE, isn't exactly a call to war. It is them giving an opinion of a school rule.

 

[Aximili86]

What? Parkland kids have to take school-issued see-through backpacks to school now? That's ****ing hilarious.

Ah, ridiculous overreach personified. 'Cause yeah, we can't just start throwing crazy people making shooting-threats into the bughouse anymore instead, that'd be mean. Let's do school-mandated uniform transparent backbacks for everyone instead.

 

[squeekness]

I wouldn't have complained about a see through backpack at my school. I mean, it's just books so I don't see what the problem is.

 

[chaseter]

I think they have chosen their battles, declaring their dissatisfaction with the rule on Twitter while FOLLOWING THE RULE, isn't exactly a call to war. It is them giving an opinion of a school rule.

Complaining publicly about backpacks isn’t choosing your battles. Accepting this change to increase safety at school that was demanded (understandably) while continuing the gun control debate publicly is choosing your battles. Being upset over metal detectors, pat downs, security guards, clear backpacks, etc. but also demanding gun control is not choosing your battles.

 

[Kelly]

I simply think their battle is "gun control", in that they are meeting, planning, giving an enormous amount of time to that......posting a pic of yourself with your new backpack and rule is not choosing anything, it is simply giving an opinion in the form of a twitter post. Equating the two as their battles is ridiculous.

That is like me putting a few twitter and facebook posts about the little pay that teacher's get as well as funding in our schools equates as me taking up the battle in the same way that teachers in Oklahoma have chosen their battle. The two are not equal in the least. Mine is a few tweets, theirs is a full fledged multi day walk out.

 

[RoastBeast]

I wouldn't have complained about a see through backpack at my school. I mean, it's just books so I don't see what the problem is.

As long as everything in it doesn't have to be see-through. I know I would have been mortified to have certain products visible to all my peers.

 

[RoastBeast]

****, a gun makes alpha irrelevant, there’s a reason they call it the ultimate equalizer. Honestly he probably cheated on her so she shot him.

Apparently there was no boyfriend. I have no idea where that idea got pulled out of in that police press conference. Really weird.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Complaining publicly about backpacks isn’t choosing your battles. Accepting this change to increase safety at school that was demanded (understandably) while continuing the gun control debate publicly is choosing your battles. Being upset over metal detectors, pat downs, security guards, clear backpacks, etc. but also demanding gun control is not choosing your battles.

Clear backpacks do not stop school shootings. Especially when you consider the shooting that happened at that school. Also they better not be patting down minors.

 

[Kelly]

What? Parkland kids have to take school-issued see-through backpacks to school now? That's ****ing hilarious.

Ah, ridiculous overreach personified. 'Cause yeah, we can't just start throwing crazy people making shooting-threats into the bughouse anymore instead, that'd be mean. Let's do school-mandated uniform transparent backbacks for everyone instead.

Not really, most high schools around the country went to mesh and clear backpacks over 2 decades ago. Not a big deal....

 

[RoastBeast]

Clear backpacks do not stop school shootings. Especially when you consider the shooting that happened at that school. Also they better not be patting down minors.

No kidding on that last! Touch my kids, and it hits the fan.

 

[Kelly]

As long as everything in it doesn't have to be see-through. I know I would have been mortified to have certain products visible to all my peers.

The school where I teach has had this rule for over 2 decades. It has not been a problem at all.

 

[RoastBeast]

The school where I teach has had this rule for over 2 decades. It has not been a problem at all.

This is a weird shopping question, but where do see-through backpacks come from? I haven't seen anything but standard ones at the usual stores, are they special order? Sold at uniform stores?

 

[chaseter]

I simply think their battle is "gun control", in that they are meeting, planning, giving an enormous amount of time to that......posting a pic of yourself with your new backpack and rule is not choosing anything, it is simply giving an opinion in the form of a twitter post. Equating the two as their battles is ridiculous.

That is like me putting a few twitter and facebook posts about the little pay that teacher's get as well as funding in our schools equates as me taking up the battle in the same way that teachers in Oklahoma have chosen their battle. The two are not equal in the least.

They aren’t just posting pics, they are upset/protesting: https://www.yahoo.com/news/parkland-students-protest-clear-backpacks-193326409.html

This is where the Left is wrong. Gun control to them only involves the tool. It doesn’t involve the person pulling the trigger...and in their case...a fellow teenager. They can’t equate losing personal liberties to increasing their own safety. They think laws will keep them safe, which they won’t.

As to your example, you can’t demand increased pay but also demand an increase in the number of staff hired. One has to decrease for the other to increase. Classic Liberty vs Safety.