WTF? (**NSFW**)

[SurelySerious]

2 hours ago, Duck said:

Agreed. What could go wrong?

What if we let him have a black market SA-7 as a compromise, and give him free reign in a certain small town outside Vegas?

[HossHarris]

I’ll accept that compromise. 

[Lord Ratner]

Well, first off, The Constituition never mentioned anything about race when counting slaves.  Second off, since slavery was banned in 1865 by The Constitution (yep, same one I'm referring to), not a single person has been counted as "3/5 of a person".  
So yes, I still do support The Constitution and its banning of slavery.  

Great. Then you'll support the changes made as a result of these massacres.

This is the fight that's coming, kiddos. Keep your head in the sand and it'll just make it easier for them to pluck your guns away while you aren't looking.

[HeloDude]

2 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Great. Then you'll support the changes made as a result of these massacres.

This is the fight that's coming, kiddos. Keep your head in the sand and it'll just make it easier for them to pluck your guns away while you aren't looking.

Sure, when you repeal the 2nd Amendment.  Let me know the 38 states that will vote to ratify the change.  Besides, I thought you were a "Pro-2A" guy?  And who is going to take away our guns, exactly?   You progresives make me laugh...

[SocialD]

 

[Lord Ratner]

 

 

 

Sure, when you repeal the 2nd Amendment.  Let me know the 38 states that will vote to ratify the change.  Besides, I thought you were a "Pro-2A" guy?  And who is going to take away our guns, exactly?   You progresives make me laugh...

 

*Edited to remove the personal attack. Apologies* This has to be internet bluster.

 

They don't have to change the 2A. It'll be a "common sense" set of laws that just "keep us safer" and a few more of these shootings, they'll have enough supporters to get it through Congress. Maybe it'll be after the Republicans lose the House or Senate, and the President goes to a prayer ceremony for the dead and sees that we have to do something, just can't let this go unanswered...

 

It'll go into effect, and of course be challenged, all the way up to SCOTUS. Then Roberts, in his perpetual effort to "keep the court respected," makes another not-a-tax-but-a-fine decision that shocks everyone, and boom, the new law is deemed constitutional. And now, because you worship the infallibility of the Constitution, and you recognize that the Constitution says that the SCOTUS determines if something is constitutional, you support the new law with all your patriotic furor, and your AR-15s are illegal once more. It wasn't the supreme court or Constitution that made them legal again, it was a sunset clause. Don't expect that mistake to be made again.

 

There are people who are honestly (and insanely) arguing against the first amendment. And some people are listening. I don't know if it's just because you guys haven't lived anywhere else in the world (where the things we consider inalienable rights are proven quite alienable), but this shit is only as secure as the voters who believe in it. Our politicians are for sale and the media is against you, and the best you got is "Sure, when you repeal the 2nd Amendment?"

 

Furthermore, and back to the original point, if I really am this undercover progressive, I've asked questions that were met with non-sequiters and disparagement. Other conservatives have expressed concern as well. This is how you convince us to remain on your side?

 

[brickhistory]

There is not a compromise.

This is an "either/or" issue.

Neither side is going to give, and to my mind, it's only been one side that's ever 'given,' so it will be either Constitutionally settled permanently, legally temporarily, or bloodily.

[HeloDude]

Well, I guess until then you're SOL with all that gun control you want.  But seriously, who is going to take away our guns?

[Warrior]

And back in the founding father’s days, you could buy or make weapons on par with, or superior to, the military and government weapons of the day. 
 
I want a hellfire missile. 

Came here to post this

[HuggyU2]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

 

 

There are people who are honestly (and insanely) arguing against the first amendment. And some people are listening.

 

[Snooter]

All lives matter...

[matmacwc]

12 hours ago, matmacwc said:

Then they start banning knives.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/17/ban-knives-delivered-shoppers-doors-proposed-government/

 

 

I meant acid, we need to ban acid.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-security-acid/britain-to-limit-acid-sales-after-steep-rise-in-assaults-idUSKCN1C817L

Edited October 4, 2017 by matmacwc

[tac airlifter]

6 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

your AR-15s are illegal once more. It wasn't the supreme court or Constitution that made them legal again, it was a sunset clause.

I’ve read all your posts and I think I understand your viewpoint excepting the above and similar statements.  What are you talking about?  The AWB of 94-04 (I think those were the years) never made ARs illegal.  In fact, this entire Vegas massacre could have been prosecuted with the same ARs available for purchase during the AWB era, as the ban was cosmetic, not functional.  The sole piece of hardware banned during that period but used in this attack was “high capacity” magazines; under the AWB era mags were limited to 10.  However, mags produced before the ban date were grandfathered in and readily available for purchase.

And that’s really key to your debate: the previous ban would not have stopped this attack, just like it didn’t stop Columbine.  Crazy people kill.  Nothing you’ve suggested would stop this incident, other than magazine capacity restrictions.  However then we’re left facing the fact that law breakers don’t follow laws.... so, your inability to justify high capacity magazines wouldn’t stop this guy from using them.  Given the level of lucidity he showed during attack prep & execution, in addition to financial resources, this guy seems like he could make his own magazines.  Yes that’s a real thing.

I’m solidly on the side of maintaining gun rights as they exist; I’d even repeal the NFA.  But for arguments sake let’s say you banned all semi-autos.  Do you think we’d not have shootings still?  The US is not Australia (to cite a commonly held comparison): were already flooded with weapons, have easy borders to cross, have a culture of gun ownership, etc.  Mexican cartels move cocaine shipments protected by full auto weapons, do you think they aren’t business savvy enough to start moving weapons instead?  Where I’m going is this: there is no putting the gun genie back in the bottle here.  It’s impossible.  There is no law which can prevent this kind of tragedy from happening when an intelligent and rich and insane person sets his mind to doing it.

if the gun control lobby wants to find a middle ground and work together, I’m happy to discuss potential legislation on mental health issues.  That they are laser focused on restricting the 2A, despite years of data disproving a correlation between legal gun ownership and gun crime, tells me they’re uninterested in “solving” the mass shooting issue, and instead shamelessly using these tragedies to advance their partisan agenda.  I get your point- we gun owners should brace ourselves for inevitable forthcoming bans and be prepared to question the necessity of every weapon and weapon add on.  I get it, but I reject your entire premise.  What law would have stopped this crime?  The same laws that stopped Nice & Paris attacks in France?  The laws that stopped the Utoya massacre in Norway?  The laws that keep Mexico so safe?  I reject the notion of gun-violence, it’s just violence.  What fixes violence?  Culture.  

I took the time to type this out because I think your original questions were well intended, and demanded a reasoned reply.  Hope you found something in here we can agree upon.

[MooseAg03]

I agree that more laws would not have prevented the massacre. Evil people will do evil things no matter what. But maybe it’s time to start playing the game a little smarter and give the crazy left something that appears like they are trying to solve the problem. I’m not sure if that’s what Lord Ratner is trying to say, but I can sure see that if we don’t agree to something now that they can tout as a ‘win’ for gun control, then the changes that do eventually get made will erode gun rights even further.

[tac airlifter]

23 minutes ago, MooseAg03 said:

start playing the game a little smarter and give the crazy left something.....

No.  They are not good faith partners in minimizing social violence.  We can’t give them anything, they’ll never stop taking and will create Chicago slums on a national scale.

17 minutes ago, gearpig said:

Is there any circumstance in which any person should not be allowed to purchase or possess any type of firearm without government involvement?

If so, why do you hate the second amendment and why aren't you supporting and defending the Constitution?

Is this directed to me?  

[GDAL]

Absolute confiscation is the only answer. Hell, it works for the war on drugs.

[tac airlifter]

2 hours ago, gearpig said:

No point in passing a law because there will be law breakers.

You’re too smart for this straw man.  The point I’m making is more complicated than your oversimplification implies.  For example: we have speed limits.  Sure some are too slow for my tastes, but I don’t deny the need for regulation.  However, if someone spends 100k on a race car and plans the time and route to race illegally, surely you wouldn’t suggest more speed limits would stop them?  It’s an imperfect example, but the overall point of my metaphor is that yes laws are necessary but when a criminal shows a unique level of diabolical sophistication in their planning and execution of a crime, that is a person whose criminal intent cannot be legislated away solely by addressing the means used.

To your point above, I’d argue law, like any tool, is only effectively wielded by users who understand the capabilities and limitations of the tool.   I’m sure some gun laws (mandatory waiting periods?) have prevented crimes of passion while others (background checks) present obstacles for deliberate and pre-meditated criminality.  However, in this particular case, given what we currently know about the alleged shooter, any law short of a  ban & confiscation would not appear to have stopped him.  And at that point, you’ve trampled my rights without making us safer from crazy people who wish us harm.

31 minutes ago, gearpig said:

That's the spirit! Sarcastic oversimplified hyperbole is the best weapon against sincere reasoned debate over a complex issue.

Gearpig I normally enjoy your posts, but do you not feel hypocritical responding to my reasoned post with oversimplified snark, then being surprised by receiving the same in return?   I challenge you to propose a law change that could prevent a wealthy and thoughtful person from committing a mass casualty event.  Bonus points for leaving out personal attacks.

Edited October 4, 2017 by tac airlifter

[HossHarris]

7 hours ago, Snooter said:

All lives matter...

Which means no lives matter. 

[skybert]

4 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

I’ve read all your posts and I think I understand your viewpoint excepting the above and similar statements.  What are you talking about?  The AWB of 94-04 (I think those were the years) never made ARs illegal.  In fact, this entire Vegas massacre could have been prosecuted with the same ARs available for purchase during the AWB era, as the ban was cosmetic, not functional.  The sole piece of hardware banned during that period but used in this attack was “high capacity” magazines; under the AWB era mags were limited to 10.  However, mags produced before the ban date were grandfathered in and readily available for purchase.

And that’s really key to your debate: the previous ban would not have stopped this attack, just like it didn’t stop Columbine.  Crazy people kill.  Nothing you’ve suggested would stop this incident, other than magazine capacity restrictions.  However then we’re left facing the fact that law breakers don’t follow laws.... so, your inability to justify high capacity magazines wouldn’t stop this guy from using them.  Given the level of lucidity he showed during attack prep & execution, in addition to financial resources, this guy seems like he could make his own magazines.  Yes that’s a real thing.

I’m solidly on the side of maintaining gun rights as they exist; I’d even repeal the NFA.  But for arguments sake let’s say you banned all semi-autos.  Do you think we’d not have shootings still?  The US is not Australia (to cite a commonly held comparison): were already flooded with weapons, have easy borders to cross, have a culture of gun ownership, etc.  Mexican cartels move cocaine shipments protected by full auto weapons, do you think they aren’t business savvy enough to start moving weapons instead?  Where I’m going is this: there is no putting the gun genie back in the bottle here.  It’s impossible.  There is no law which can prevent this kind of tragedy from happening when an intelligent and rich and insane person sets his mind to doing it.

if the gun control lobby wants to find a middle ground and work together, I’m happy to discuss potential legislation on mental health issues.  That they are laser focused on restricting the 2A, despite years of data disproving a correlation between legal gun ownership and gun crime, tells me they’re uninterested in “solving” the mass shooting issue, and instead shamelessly using these tragedies to advance their partisan agenda.  I get your point- we gun owners should brace ourselves for inevitable forthcoming bans and be prepared to question the necessity of every weapon and weapon add on.  I get it, but I reject your entire premise.  What law would have stopped this crime?  The same laws that stopped Nice & Paris attacks in France?  The laws that stopped the Utoya massacre in Norway?  The laws that keep Mexico so safe?  I reject the notion of gun-violence, it’s just violence.  What fixes violence?  Culture.  

I took the time to type this out because I think your original questions were well intended, and demanded a reasoned reply.  Hope you found something in here we can agree upon.

Well said.

[Darth]

14 hours ago, Buddy Spike said:

 

Go for it.  While you're at it, let's fix the anchor baby and term limits issues. 

I am not advocating that we change the 2A, my point that while as written it is not negotiable (unless the SCOTUS rules otherwise in the interest of public safety or some such...such as random stops for DUI checks) only that the Constitution and the amendments are amendable.

[GDAL]

34 minutes ago, gearpig said:

Those three snarky posts were intended to mock the earlier absurdly simplistic immovable conviction that any restriction or limitation on any type of weapon, firearm, or accessory is an infringement on a constitutional right. I don't want just anybody walking into a gun show to purchase an M249 unchecked. Hell, I'd like to own one myself but I fully expect to throughly vetted to meet some sort of minimum standard other than simply existing before walking out the door with one. Likewise, I don't believe bump fire stocks designed to circumvent laws preventing just anyone from owning a firearm with an absurdly high rate of fire should be plucked off the rack at any retail store.

From a negotiating position, I understand the "all or nothing" and "slippery slope" and tactics of debate. Because if I get you to admit that a line must be drawn somewhere in an attempt to find a better balance between safety from violent citizens today and safety from tyranny tomorrow, then the debate becomes much more complex and difficult over exactly where to draw it. That's why few will attempt a sincere answer to my first question. A "no compromises, no concessions" position is an intellectually lazy bullshit approach to governing a civilized society. I support and defend the Constitution not because I have an unquestioning quasi-religious zealotry unto it as if it were a holy manuscript written and mandated by God, but because it was created by a room full of citizens who endlessly debated and quarreled over it until they reached middle-ground, and then realizing that it was not perfect or beyond reproach until the end of time, gave provisions for it to be improved upon. 

No bump fire stocks. How's that for a law? But it is the position of many here that laws don't impede law breakers and this guy could have whittled one out of table leg, it wouldn't have changed the outcome at all, right? Absurd.

So what are some reasonable compromises the right might take? Close the gunshow loophole? Outlaw makeshift devices that increase fire rate? I'm just trying to take the temperature here, not saying anyone is right or wrong.

As a side note... I've found it's pretty easy to bump fire most AR/AK/SKS type rifles by hooking your trigger finger through your belt loop. Of course, you're firing from the hip and you have virtually zero control. Just a thought.

Edited October 4, 2017 by GDAL

[Lord Ratner]

Tac and Moose,

You get my point exactly. Truth is, I haven't yet decided what I think should happen as a result of this, and other shootings. But that's not the point I'm making.

Something is going to happen. I know the stats. I know the reality. I own many of the same guns decried by the uninformed, and I enjoy them greatly. I know how easily they can be changed, regardless of the law. But the same people here (and in most conservative circles) who decry the lunacy of the masses are acting as though they are not beholden to their will. We all are. And if we don't start acting like it, we're going to lose the battle over the 2nd Amendment. 

They can take our guns. They can, and with enough support, they will. You guys keep throwing the constitution in my face as though the people who actually want to take your guns give one flying fuck about it. And the simple truth is that the overwhelming majority of you are not going to die for the right to own an AR-15, or a 30 round magazine, or collapsible stocks. You're not going to go to prison over it. You might write a sternly worded email to your congressman, but the ones who want to take our guns will just use your email and the constitution as a piece of two-ply while they do the real work of convincing the voters with lies and scare tactics. 

Do you think they're going to just pass a law banning guns? They aren't going to make it that easy on you. They'll pass some watered down piece of garbage legislation that doesn't solve anything and only affects a minority of gun owners. Unenforceable, but it will get people used to the idea that some guns are bad guns. Then, after a few more shootings, the laws will be "fixed" to give them some teeth. Over the years, and I'm talking 20-30 years, more barriers to entry will be constructed, until there's a generational gap in gun ownership and use. Your kids will think you're the crazy old guy who can't get with the times. Then, it's gone, with no battle, no righteous victory. Slow, patient change. Don't believe me? This is exactly the strategy with socialized healthcare. Conservatives are playing fiddlesticks while the progressives are playing 4D chess. They don't care if you hide your guns in the backyard, they'll just convince your heirs to not want them when you die.

Gun owners, NRA included, do a terrible job of fighting the battle. They want to believe they'll all take up arms if the suits come knocking, but if it doesn't come to that, they're happy to sit smugly and wait. Nonsense. Income taxes, healthcare, property rights, welfare benefits, there are plenty of examples where these changes took decades, but they happened. If we (yes, we) want to protect the 2nd Amendment, it's going to take more dedication than they have to ending it. 

And most importantly, it's going to take a better message than "price of freedom" when someone loses their loved ones in a mass shooting. 59 people died, yet somehow I have at least a dozen people on my Facebook feed talking about how they knew someone 1st or 2nd hand who was a victim. I bet many of you do too. These people are looking for answers, and the gun-control side has them. Wrong answers, sure, but I would have thought by now, after the Republican primaries of 2016, that conservatives have learned a bad or incomplete answer always Trumps no answer at all. 

Edited October 4, 2017 by Lord Ratner

[Lord Ratner]

52 minutes ago, gearpig said:

A "no compromises, no concessions" position is an intellectually lazy bullshit approach to governing a civilized society. I support and defend the Constitution not because I have an unquestioning quasi-religious zealotry unto it as if it were a holy manuscript written and mandated by God, but because it was created by a room full of citizens who endlessly debated and quarreled over it until they reached middle-ground, and then realizing that it was not perfect or beyond reproach until the end of time, gave provisions for it to be improved upon. 

No bump fire stocks. How's that for a law? But it is the position of many here that laws don't impede law breakers and this guy could have whittled one out of table leg, it wouldn't have changed the outcome at all, right? Absurd.

This. Someone is going to "improve" upon it. It can be the gun owners, or it can be the gun haters. If we refuse to engage in the debate, we concede our control in whatever "improvements" follow.

[Lord Ratner]

26 minutes ago, GDAL said:

So what are some reasonable compromises the right might take? Close the gunshow loophole? Outlaw makeshift devices that increase fire rate? I'm just trying to take the temperature here, not saying anyone is right or wrong.

As a side note... I've found it's pretty easy to bump fire most AR/AK/SKS type rifles by hooking your trigger finger through your belt loop. Of course, you're firing from the hip and you have virtually zero control. Just a thought.

I don't know yet. I've been a bit too distracted with admin stuff to sit down and really think about it. But my first thought was, why do we allow removable magazines? Lets say we didn't even change capacity. Why can't I take the time to load 30 rounds into my fixed-magazine AR-15 at the range? What enjoyment do I lose? Does it make the AR-15 less fun? Yeah, a bit. How much? Does it make it less lethal? You bet. How much?

I would vote to make bump stocks and any other loophole modifications illegal. I agree with auto being (mostly) outlawed. I'm also a big fan of cooling off periods. I have never met someone who needed a gun in the next hour. Wanted, preferred, desired, sure. But needed?  

Look, like I said, I don't know yet. But if I can't explain it to a non-gun-owner, then why do I believe it myself?

Edited October 4, 2017 by Lord Ratner

[Warrior]

47 minutes ago, GDAL said:

So what are some reasonable compromises the right might take? Close the gunshow loophole? Outlaw makeshift devices that increase fire rate? I'm just trying to take the temperature here, not saying anyone is right or wrong.

As a side note... I've found it's pretty easy to bump fire most AR/AK/SKS type rifles by hooking your trigger finger through your belt loop. Of course, you're firing from the hip and you have virtually zero control. Just a thought.

What is this gunshow loophole? Private face to face transactions were not included under Brady. Characterize it as a loophole if you like, but in reality it's perfectly legal under the law as written. 

The real issue that laws are written by politicians who have no clue about "the shoulder thingy that goes up."  How is someone with that level of expertise going to write a law banning bumpfire stocks that doesn't also outlaw belt loops? (No, i'm not being sarcastic).