No, it wouldn't be this way if the people fought instead of rolling over, since you know that one part in the 2nd amendment, "shall not be infringed." We the people should have the same ordnance as the avg GI Joe and then some. If you read American history you would see that people owned muskets, swords, to cannons and gatling guns, and even war ships. We the people kept up with the technology of firearms till the mid 20s then we rolled over for the feelings of "safe".
Hot Topic: What Should Be Done About Guns?
- Thread starter bear489
- Start date
Boy, didn't see this question coming a 100 miles away. Short answer: yes.
Long answer: As I said if you look at our history the everyday citizen had the same arms or in most cases better arms then the government had. If someone can afford the cost of buying a nuclear weapon, afford the upkeep of said weapon, and keep it safe from unauthorized person, then by all means go for it.
The 2nd amendment was written to protect the everyday citizen's right to protect oneself from domestic and/or foreign person/government using any arms necessary.
I did, thanks for the post.
theheroweneed
CAGiversary!
This is, quite possibly, the dumbest shit I have ever read.
theheroweneed
CAGiversary!
Don't worry, you're 100% right to engage them the way you are. They have no intention of honestly debating the subject. All their talking points are bullshit.
theheroweneed
CAGiversary!
Friendly reminder that you are insulting children who survived a school shooting. You must live a happy life and not at all be a sad, pathetic piece of shit.David Hogg is a little. He is using dead classmates who he doesn't even know for his 15 mins of fame.
https://youtu.be/IUOkBv6wMhc?t=4m26s
Emma Gonzalez is a little
Cool, what's your plan?
Care to make alternatives points?
Friendly reminder that David was not at school the day of the shooting and this site has a multiquote button, so you don't look dumb making all these post one after another.
theheroweneed
CAGiversary!
Let me guess, you get your news from www.americanpatriotnews.ru?
Msut77 and I don't interpret the 2nd amendment the same way so it would be hard for us to find common ground on this topic. You haven't brought anything meaningful to this topic at all so... you can go back to lurking if your not bringing anything to the big kid table. Msut77 has made points and I respect him having opinions on the topic even if they are different from mine. Bear also has different opinions from mine although it seems like him and I may interpret the 2nd amendment closer to the same so we have a starting point even if we don't agree on some of the other talking points. You on the other hand are just here to what... insult us? Do you have any actual opinions on the topic?
We didn't bring in the new Florida bill that passed recently:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/08/us/florida-gun-bill.html
What do you guys think of it? I don't know that I agree with raising the age from 18 to 21. If we do that then I feel like we need to raise the age of military enlistment to 21 and the smoking and voting age. Either an 18 year old is an adult or not, but I have thought it's silly that the drinking age is 21 and not 18. I would like to see us just pick an age where you can have your rights as an adult and stick with it.
The waiting period seems fine, if I had to wait a couple extra days to buy a gun so they can make sure I'm not a terrorist, I have no problem with that.
Banning bump stocks is fine.
Arming school employees is fine, obviously no teacher or school employee should be required to carry, but I have no problem with my kids teachers carrying if they have had a background check and have a desire to.
Funding school security and expanding mental health is of course great.
What are your thoughts?
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't have a problem with raising the age to 21 to buy a firearm, if we raise other rights and benefits to the age of 21 as well. As in smoking, driving, joining the Military, and voting.
The waiting period is just a feel good idea, I've not come across any studies or news reports that this has saved anyone's lives. It's just a minor inconvenience to the law abiding citizens.
Same with the bump stock ban, another feel good idea. I've shown videos of work around and I even tried it. The only case where a bump stock might have been used was the Vegas shooting. I know they said they found rifles with the device on them but was ever confirmed those were used?
Again I'm for arming teachers or a least have armed security on school. This week a school shooting was stopped in FL by a armed security. A man who was not a student entered and fired at a 17 year old boy. The armed guard was able to return fire and stopped the shooter. I want teachers to have that option opened to them.
Lastly mental health is a very slippery slope, who would be the one to draw that line saying someone who's unfit to have firearms? I know some mental health are easy to call out but alot of others would be too hard to say. Like if someone who is mentally fit but then has to take meds for anxiety attacks caused by a new job. Once they're over the anxiety of the new job will they have their rights bestowed back to them or will the gov say no just in case?
CaptainJoel
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 100 (100%)
I can understand wanting a Nuclear bomb. I'd also like to have one of those and my own Mercenary nation at my command.
For now, I'm just a dreamer, though.
For now, I'm just a dreamer, though.
Bored as hell today and saw this thread so figured I'd chime in with some random opinions...I won't be focused here so this is more of a rant but as someone whos served, and handles weapons on a daily basis for my current job, here's how I feel about some of the Parkland stuff:
1) Immediately after it happened I noticed all of the gatherings/protests on the news. I ignorantly assumed that the individuals were up in arms over Nickolas Cruz and were asking for his immediate prosecution/swift trial. I was somewhat shocked upon closer observation when I realized those protesting were really not even talking about Cruz at all, and instead of having a bone to pick with him, were again up in arms about weapons in general. Most mass shooters kill themselves after their event, so the fact that Cruz did not and had been apprehended, I thought was a small victory for the surviving victims, as they could get to see him explain himself and be punished accordingly. But it felt like these kids immediately forgot about Cruz or made excuses for him, and instead immediately went after the 2nd. I honestly am still not sure I understand this logic. I could make analogies about all the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" stuff but I know the far left has already heard them and if they weren't going to accept that explanation then, they certainly aren't going to hearing it from me in this thread.
2) I really don't believe arming teachers is the best solution. At least not making it a mandatory thing. Teaching is already a very stressful and time consuming job and adding an additional responsibility of this measure is a lot to ask. Especially considering there is probably no budget in state funding to pay these folks appropriately for the additional effort. Marksmanship is a very perishable skill and requalification would realistically need to occur about every 6 months. Especially for people who will likely not use the weapon on their own in their off time. Not to mention the cost of range time, ammunition, instructors, and the cost and upkeep of the weapons themselves. Each school would also need to build an appropriate armory to store this equipment. Locking a handgun in a wooden desk cabinet is not appropriate. On top of that you would have to put these folks through consistent psychological screenings and ensure that they are mentally competent to do this. And if a teacher is not, do you remove them from their job just because they don't meet this requirement? There's probably several amazing teachers who are well qualified to give kids a great education while at the same time not having what it takes to manage a handgun. It is a totally separate state of mind. A better solution would be to spend the money on additional school officers, or employ US veterans or off duty law enforcement in a security role.
3) Trying to outright "ban" firearms at this point is a lost cause. Maybe it would have worked 100 years ago, I don't know. But it won't now. Chicago's ridiculously high rate of shootings seems to confirm that when the bad guys know that the good guys can't have them, they quickly realize they are in a city chock full of soft targets. If you are already going to commit a felony like aggravated assault or robbery, having a weapon doesn't really make a difference on the punishment end. If they get caught they know they are doing time regardless. So bringing a weapon along helps them more than it hurts them. I am not completely opposed to some gun reforms though. I think things need to improve on the administrative end. Different municipality and federal/state jurisdictions need to come up with a vastly improved system to communicate with one another in regards to criminal records that would prevent weapon sales to high risk individuals. Same goes for medical establishments. The healthcare privacy act is a good thing in practice but in it's current state it's too restrictive for agencies to be able to keep track of the mental health history of individuals. Some reform is needed. Finally, the level of background checks necessary to purchase a firearm could improve if these other things were reformed.
1) Immediately after it happened I noticed all of the gatherings/protests on the news. I ignorantly assumed that the individuals were up in arms over Nickolas Cruz and were asking for his immediate prosecution/swift trial. I was somewhat shocked upon closer observation when I realized those protesting were really not even talking about Cruz at all, and instead of having a bone to pick with him, were again up in arms about weapons in general. Most mass shooters kill themselves after their event, so the fact that Cruz did not and had been apprehended, I thought was a small victory for the surviving victims, as they could get to see him explain himself and be punished accordingly. But it felt like these kids immediately forgot about Cruz or made excuses for him, and instead immediately went after the 2nd. I honestly am still not sure I understand this logic. I could make analogies about all the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" stuff but I know the far left has already heard them and if they weren't going to accept that explanation then, they certainly aren't going to hearing it from me in this thread.
2) I really don't believe arming teachers is the best solution. At least not making it a mandatory thing. Teaching is already a very stressful and time consuming job and adding an additional responsibility of this measure is a lot to ask. Especially considering there is probably no budget in state funding to pay these folks appropriately for the additional effort. Marksmanship is a very perishable skill and requalification would realistically need to occur about every 6 months. Especially for people who will likely not use the weapon on their own in their off time. Not to mention the cost of range time, ammunition, instructors, and the cost and upkeep of the weapons themselves. Each school would also need to build an appropriate armory to store this equipment. Locking a handgun in a wooden desk cabinet is not appropriate. On top of that you would have to put these folks through consistent psychological screenings and ensure that they are mentally competent to do this. And if a teacher is not, do you remove them from their job just because they don't meet this requirement? There's probably several amazing teachers who are well qualified to give kids a great education while at the same time not having what it takes to manage a handgun. It is a totally separate state of mind. A better solution would be to spend the money on additional school officers, or employ US veterans or off duty law enforcement in a security role.
3) Trying to outright "ban" firearms at this point is a lost cause. Maybe it would have worked 100 years ago, I don't know. But it won't now. Chicago's ridiculously high rate of shootings seems to confirm that when the bad guys know that the good guys can't have them, they quickly realize they are in a city chock full of soft targets. If you are already going to commit a felony like aggravated assault or robbery, having a weapon doesn't really make a difference on the punishment end. If they get caught they know they are doing time regardless. So bringing a weapon along helps them more than it hurts them. I am not completely opposed to some gun reforms though. I think things need to improve on the administrative end. Different municipality and federal/state jurisdictions need to come up with a vastly improved system to communicate with one another in regards to criminal records that would prevent weapon sales to high risk individuals. Same goes for medical establishments. The healthcare privacy act is a good thing in practice but in it's current state it's too restrictive for agencies to be able to keep track of the mental health history of individuals. Some reform is needed. Finally, the level of background checks necessary to purchase a firearm could improve if these other things were reformed.
Last edited by a moderator:
1. This is not an isolated incident and hence, was not treated like one. There was a complete breakdown of the systems that could've prevented this. We're talking from the school to law enforcement to societal. Cruz is going reap what he has sown, but that doesn't prevent this from happening again. THAT is why the focus isn't strictly on him.
2. Blame the NRA. Florida has some of the shittiest schools in the country, yet they found $67,000,000 to give less training to teachers than your typical cosplaying weekend warrior instead of using money to improve education and emntal health programs.
3. Chicago is a red herring and anyone that brings it up as an argument against gun regulation doesn't give a shit about the city or it's people. It's simply a prop employed by conservatives that are completely ignorant of the laws to make a vacuous point. New Orleans is the actual city with the highest number of homicides per capita. Also, most of the guns used in Chicago are originally purchased from nearby towns with much looser gun restrictions.
As for your suggested gun reforms? Blame the NRA. Who do you think put up those roadblocks to your ideas? You don't think that anyone to the left of you never made those suggestions? Hell, those are the mainstream stances of the Democratic party!
By the way, you do realize that you completely contradicted your "guns don't kill people" nonsense at the end of you post, right?
I don't think using Chicago as an example for any of this is wrong. It's the biggest and most well known of the cities that are having problems with shootings, and is going to be the most relatable to people in a discussion. I also never mentioned homicide, just shootings in general. If we are talking just homicides, I know Chicago was highest overall one year recently, even if that wasn't per capita. So it's not exactly insignificant. I don't understand how that means the person doesn't give a shit about the people living there. I do have relatives there. As far as people bringing the firearms into the city, well yeah. That's kind of the point. They can't buy or keep them there legally so they just bring them in knowing that law abiding folk won't do the same.
I'm not sure why it's a surprise that I suggested those things. Moderate and reasonable reform is worthy of discussion. If the far left is in favor of things like bans then I'm not going to go that far but I'm also not in favor of leaving everything exactly how it is. Shortly after the Parkland incident a former supreme court judge suggested repealing the 2nd. It's extreme opinions such as those that I would take issue with if they were actually formally proposed. But I'm not in the same camp as those who believe Obama was actively trying to "take their guns away."
I don't think "contradiction" is relative here. Maybe you are looking at it from a less literal perspective. I can agree that a firearm can make the process of injuring or killing people faster or efficient over other means, but it can't get from point A to B without someone's booger picker in the trigger well. In this case it was Cruz. Ensuring a person is more qualified to operate one doesn't make the quote a contradiction. The weapon alone still isn't harming anyone.
I have a simple question for you: City A has a population of 100,000 and 100 people were shot. City B, has a population of 10,000 and 10 people were shot. City C has a population of 100 and 2 people were shot. Which city are you more likely to be shot?
The only thing I'm "surprised" about is how you jumped from me saying that the NRA is to blame to you blaming "the far left" for controlling the narrative. What does the far left have to do with anything when the 2nd amendment is still around and the NRA is instrumental in allowing easier access to guns for people that shouldn't have them? Again, who do you think is fighting against proposals like yours?
Your proposals are a contradiction to that cliché because if it truly is "people kill people," then why bother having those restrictions and creating systems to keep guns out of some people's hands if gun ownership is a non-issue? You already recognize that it's an issue, so you need to break through that cognitive dissonance and stop clinging to vacuous idioms as if they're deep philosophical concepts. The only thing it's good for is to stop people from thinking critically about the issue.
Carnival73
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 157 (100%)
I'm not a Conservative
I didn't own a gun when I was I still living in America
but understanding the majority of humans in our world
who only respect fear
I wouldn't vote to disarm
You've already had one demonstration this year where an indigenous man from this country (New Zealand)
managed to get a ticket too America and tried to climb in through some young girl's window with a bucket list
of all the ways he was going to torture her to death only for the mother to shoot him; ending what would've otherwise been
a horrific topic of discussion for many years to come.
Last month an English tourist was murdered over here; she didn't possess a gun as gun ownership in NZ is restricted to certain professions
Our gangs all own automatic weapons however....maybe that's one of the privileged professions.
I didn't own a gun when I was I still living in America
but understanding the majority of humans in our world
who only respect fear
I wouldn't vote to disarm
You've already had one demonstration this year where an indigenous man from this country (New Zealand)
managed to get a ticket too America and tried to climb in through some young girl's window with a bucket list
of all the ways he was going to torture her to death only for the mother to shoot him; ending what would've otherwise been
a horrific topic of discussion for many years to come.
Last month an English tourist was murdered over here; she didn't possess a gun as gun ownership in NZ is restricted to certain professions
Our gangs all own automatic weapons however....maybe that's one of the privileged professions.
Last edited by a moderator:
LilInstigator
CAG Newbie
I've been the victim of two armed robberies. I hate guns, I'll never own one.
But I think people should be able to have whatever they want, and I wouldn't want my dislike of them to keep anyone else from owning or using guns for their most likely intended purposes. Maybe it's from growing up in a place like West Virginia, where you're more likely to be killed in a traffic accident caused by hitting a deer than by someone not yielding to traffic, and where coyotes were introduced to control their population without the game wardens/state planning/whatever considering that there's LOTS OF BIG SLOW LIVESTOCK- anyway, I'm getting off topic here...
Both of the armed robberies where I was the victim probably would've gone down similarly if someone had a knife or a samurai sword at the ready. They were sudden instances of wanton endangerment and violence, with no time to think, prepare, or do anything but react from a survival standpoint. Sure, you can grab the end of a knife (or a samurai sword because lol), but you can also do that with a gun. So what's worse? Getting your hands or gut or part of your leg sliced off or stabbed through, or getting a bullet through one of those similar places?
There is also a common fantasy that having a gun will somehow turn someone into a hero, because they might have been able to stop something before it happened. The instance of the mother killing an intruder was likely more based on instinct and fear than careful planning - I'm not putting that down either. That would've been a horrible situation had she not reacted quickly to what was a guaranteed dangerous situation. The problem is that the guarantee isn't always there. The other problem is that if someone yanks out an assault rifle and starts blasting, that 45 in your pocket will probably require more thought than that other person has to put in to pointing and firing a garden hose for bullets. I'm not trying to argue the science of these weapons here, I've shot a lot of guns. Not as an adult, but I grew up around them. I know what they feel like and what they do. Explanations of ballistics probably aren't going to budge me much on this point. The fantasy of being a hero is an unfortunate delusion shared by many gun owners. The reality of being someone in danger - ANYONE in danger is entirely different. Maybe some people would think about the fact they own a gun. I think it's more realistic to assume that if shots started getting popped off in the same room that you're in, you're more than likely going to try to play dead, altogether forget about your own gun, or get the hell out of there before you're turned into Swiss cheese.
Anyway, the point is I don't think putting a limit on peoples' personal freedoms is a good answer to controlling the problem, because I think it would place a final, "THERE FIXED IT!" stamp on top of something that will still be a gigantic problem. Rather than stopping violent crime, it'll just make everyone who owns a gun a criminal. The idea of someone having a gun in their home for protection isn't abhorrent to me, neither is it a problem to me that those people would use them for self defense.
What I don't like - The recent (Past 20 years or so?) tendency of people to reach for a gun first as a solution to violent actions. That should be the last place you go, not the first. This goes for everyone whether they're military, police, or just your normal dude who might go turkey or deer hunting. There is a strong tendency to solving any and all problems with a tool that is specifically made for the purpose of killing, and in relation to human beings that's not okay.
My thoughts in the whole gun debate boil down to this - Why do such a large group of people think that silencing, blackmailing, threatening, and outright killing others is an acceptable answer to their basic human problems? What has really changed in the past 30 years?
Okay, sure, I'm not backing this up with articles. I can find them, but just wanted to put my 2 cents in.
Thanks guys. Thanks to military personnel. Thanks to nonabusive law enforcement. Thanks to EVERYONE practicing their rights responsibly. I appreciate and support responsible gun use and ownership. Stay good everybody!
But I think people should be able to have whatever they want, and I wouldn't want my dislike of them to keep anyone else from owning or using guns for their most likely intended purposes. Maybe it's from growing up in a place like West Virginia, where you're more likely to be killed in a traffic accident caused by hitting a deer than by someone not yielding to traffic, and where coyotes were introduced to control their population without the game wardens/state planning/whatever considering that there's LOTS OF BIG SLOW LIVESTOCK- anyway, I'm getting off topic here...
Both of the armed robberies where I was the victim probably would've gone down similarly if someone had a knife or a samurai sword at the ready. They were sudden instances of wanton endangerment and violence, with no time to think, prepare, or do anything but react from a survival standpoint. Sure, you can grab the end of a knife (or a samurai sword because lol), but you can also do that with a gun. So what's worse? Getting your hands or gut or part of your leg sliced off or stabbed through, or getting a bullet through one of those similar places?
There is also a common fantasy that having a gun will somehow turn someone into a hero, because they might have been able to stop something before it happened. The instance of the mother killing an intruder was likely more based on instinct and fear than careful planning - I'm not putting that down either. That would've been a horrible situation had she not reacted quickly to what was a guaranteed dangerous situation. The problem is that the guarantee isn't always there. The other problem is that if someone yanks out an assault rifle and starts blasting, that 45 in your pocket will probably require more thought than that other person has to put in to pointing and firing a garden hose for bullets. I'm not trying to argue the science of these weapons here, I've shot a lot of guns. Not as an adult, but I grew up around them. I know what they feel like and what they do. Explanations of ballistics probably aren't going to budge me much on this point. The fantasy of being a hero is an unfortunate delusion shared by many gun owners. The reality of being someone in danger - ANYONE in danger is entirely different. Maybe some people would think about the fact they own a gun. I think it's more realistic to assume that if shots started getting popped off in the same room that you're in, you're more than likely going to try to play dead, altogether forget about your own gun, or get the hell out of there before you're turned into Swiss cheese.
Anyway, the point is I don't think putting a limit on peoples' personal freedoms is a good answer to controlling the problem, because I think it would place a final, "THERE FIXED IT!" stamp on top of something that will still be a gigantic problem. Rather than stopping violent crime, it'll just make everyone who owns a gun a criminal. The idea of someone having a gun in their home for protection isn't abhorrent to me, neither is it a problem to me that those people would use them for self defense.
What I don't like - The recent (Past 20 years or so?) tendency of people to reach for a gun first as a solution to violent actions. That should be the last place you go, not the first. This goes for everyone whether they're military, police, or just your normal dude who might go turkey or deer hunting. There is a strong tendency to solving any and all problems with a tool that is specifically made for the purpose of killing, and in relation to human beings that's not okay.
My thoughts in the whole gun debate boil down to this - Why do such a large group of people think that silencing, blackmailing, threatening, and outright killing others is an acceptable answer to their basic human problems? What has really changed in the past 30 years?
Okay, sure, I'm not backing this up with articles. I can find them, but just wanted to put my 2 cents in.
Thanks guys. Thanks to military personnel. Thanks to nonabusive law enforcement. Thanks to EVERYONE practicing their rights responsibly. I appreciate and support responsible gun use and ownership. Stay good everybody!
Justinebet
CAG Newbie
You make a lot of good points sir P. However, I beleive the job needs to be done, for the good of the world. I beleive its needs to be finished. If it is not, then all Canadian Soldiers who died there basically died for nothing. Just like Americans in Viet Nam.
bread's done