school shooting

[appst89]

I am not against the idea of intelligent gun control. The type of rifle used in that shooting probably is not needed by a private owner. The problem I have is with giving the government that power. I don't think the founding fathers envisioned multiple round magazines, but I do know they envisioned a time when the populace would have to overthrow an oppressive government just as they had done and they made sure the people had the blessing of the Constitution to be prepared for it.

The problem is people are showing they aren't capable of controlling guns on their own. And in this case the "few bad apples" are causing major tragedy. So yes, in this instance someone has to step in and force people to change. Probably lots of changes. Your "freedoms" and your right to become an anarchist (which is exactly what you are talking like here) is infinitely less important than the right for people to LIVE.

The simple fact that you can rationalize things the way you (and others) do is scary. Normally you and I see eye to eye on a lot of things. This one we are polar opposites.

And the way you (and others) can rationalize giving up rights is scary to me. So, yes, I think we will likely remain polar opposites on this one.

If wanting to preserve the Constitution makes me an anarchist then I guess I'm part of a new group.

What galls me is that I can't fire off an RPG every now and then. I would find that entertaining and enjoyable. Besides, if we can't fire off an RPG every now and then, what's next? A ban on AK-47s? I just don't get why the government has to intervene in our lives all the time. Just like these stupid DUI and speeding laws...people still drive drunk and kill people and they still speed and kill people, so what good are the laws? I just think if I want to get drunker than Cootie Brown's pappy, stick my head out of my sunroof at 90mph and fire off a couple RRGs, I ought to have the right to do it. Stupid government regulations are taking away my freedoms...I'm going to start an insurrection. Oh wait, I can't because they won't let me shoot a fricking RPG!!!

No, I've changed my mind. You missed my last post. I don't want rights. They are dangerous and somebody might get hurt. If we give them all away then the government can protect us from ourselves so that we never get hurt.

And you'll lose you ability to snipe and run.

[ASUPATCH]

I am not against the idea of intelligent gun control. The type of rifle used in that shooting probably is not needed by a private owner. The problem I have is with giving the government that power. I don't think the founding fathers envisioned multiple round magazines, but I do know they envisioned a time when the populace would have to overthrow an oppressive government just as they had done and they made sure the people had the blessing of the Constitution to be prepared for it.

The problem is people are showing they aren't capable of controlling guns on their own. And in this case the "few bad apples" are causing major tragedy. So yes, in this instance someone has to step in and force people to change. Probably lots of changes. Your "freedoms" and your right to become an anarchist (which is exactly what you are talking like here) is infinitely less important than the right for people to LIVE.

The simple fact that you can rationalize things the way you (and others) do is scary. Normally you and I see eye to eye on a lot of things. This one we are polar opposites.

And the way you (and others) can rationalize giving up rights is scary to me. So, yes, I think we will likely remain polar opposites on this one.

If wanting to preserve the Constitution makes me an anarchist then I guess I'm part of a new group.

Which constitution are you preserving. The orginal one or the current one with its ammendments. Meth was legal in the constitution. Do you feel it should be manufactured and sold or do you simple pick and chose which parts of the constitution you want to uphold. And chose which ammendments you like and dont like.

[Appsolutely]

I am not against the idea of intelligent gun control. The type of rifle used in that shooting probably is not needed by a private owner. The problem I have is with giving the government that power. I don't think the founding fathers envisioned multiple round magazines, but I do know they envisioned a time when the populace would have to overthrow an oppressive government just as they had done and they made sure the people had the blessing of the Constitution to be prepared for it.

The problem is people are showing they aren't capable of controlling guns on their own. And in this case the "few bad apples" are causing major tragedy. So yes, in this instance someone has to step in and force people to change. Probably lots of changes. Your "freedoms" and your right to become an anarchist (which is exactly what you are talking like here) is infinitely less important than the right for people to LIVE.

The simple fact that you can rationalize things the way you (and others) do is scary. Normally you and I see eye to eye on a lot of things. This one we are polar opposites.

And the way you (and others) can rationalize giving up rights is scary to me. So, yes, I think we will likely remain polar opposites on this one.

If wanting to preserve the Constitution makes me an anarchist then I guess I'm part of a new group.

What galls me is that I can't fire off an RPG every now and then. I would find that entertaining and enjoyable. Besides, if we can't fire off an RPG every now and then, what's next? A ban on AK-47s? I just don't get why the government has to intervene in our lives all the time. Just like these stupid DUI and speeding laws...people still drive drunk and kill people and they still speed and kill people, so what good are the laws? I just think if I want to get drunker than Cootie Brown's pappy, stick my head out of my sunroof at 90mph and fire off a couple RRGs, I ought to have the right to do it. Stupid government regulations are taking away my freedoms...I'm going to start an insurrection. Oh wait, I can't because they won't let me shoot a fricking RPG!!!

No, I've changed my mind. You missed my last post. I don't want rights. They are dangerous and somebody might get hurt. If we give them all away then the government can protect us from ourselves so that we never get hurt.

And you'll lose you ability to snipe and run.

Does that mean I can fire off an RPG? HAIL YAYAH!!!
And while you're at it, pass me sum o' that shine and reefer!

[appst89]

I am not against the idea of intelligent gun control. The type of rifle used in that shooting probably is not needed by a private owner. The problem I have is with giving the government that power. I don't think the founding fathers envisioned multiple round magazines, but I do know they envisioned a time when the populace would have to overthrow an oppressive government just as they had done and they made sure the people had the blessing of the Constitution to be prepared for it.

The problem is people are showing they aren't capable of controlling guns on their own. And in this case the "few bad apples" are causing major tragedy. So yes, in this instance someone has to step in and force people to change. Probably lots of changes. Your "freedoms" and your right to become an anarchist (which is exactly what you are talking like here) is infinitely less important than the right for people to LIVE.

The simple fact that you can rationalize things the way you (and others) do is scary. Normally you and I see eye to eye on a lot of things. This one we are polar opposites.

And the way you (and others) can rationalize giving up rights is scary to me. So, yes, I think we will likely remain polar opposites on this one.

If wanting to preserve the Constitution makes me an anarchist then I guess I'm part of a new group.

Which constitution are you preserving. The orginal one or the current one with its ammendments. Meth was legal in the constitution. Do you feel it should be manufactured and sold or do you simple pick and chose which parts of the constitution you want to uphold. And chose which ammendments you like and dont like.

If the kind of changes that need to be made can be made and stopped there then I am fine with it. I have said that already. The Constitution was made to be amended. I do not believe that our government, in it's current state, if given the power to regulate gun ownership can stop with just what needs to be done.

[rbarthle17]

If the kind of changes that need to be made can be made and stopped there then I am fine with it. I have said that already. The Constitution was made to be amended. I do not believe that our government, in it's current state, if given the power to regulate gun ownership can stop with just what needs to be done.

Well that makes sense, since the NRA... err... the Republicans aren't in charge anymore.

Okay, low blow, I admit. Also not entirely untrue.

[appst89]

If the kind of changes that need to be made can be made and stopped there then I am fine with it. I have said that already. The Constitution was made to be amended. I do not believe that our government, in it's current state, if given the power to regulate gun ownership can stop with just what needs to be done.

Well that makes sense, since the NRA... err... the Republicans aren't in charge anymore.

Okay, low blow, I admit. Also not entirely untrue.

I don't think it matters which side is in charge. They are equally corrupt and equally ineffective. And I wouldn't trust either side to handle such a decision.

[ASUPATCH]

No bill will be brought up that could ever pass regulating all guns. The only thing they want to do it stop sales of assault rifles high cap mags and the gunshow loop holes and make sure every state is doing legit background checks. I would also like to see online guns sales stopped as it is currently being used a as a loophole. Private sales of guns IMO should also be stricktly enforced as a private citizen in need of money would sell it to anyone if not regulated for the right price.

[AppGrad1]

Ideally ok.
Realistically gun control will never stop mass killings. It'll only make people feel like they've done something to stop it and to feel better.

[ASUPATCH]

Ideally ok.
Realistically gun control will never stop mass killings. It'll only make people feel like they've done something to stop it and to feel better.

Nothing will ever stop mass killing.After all a person pulls the trigger. I just want to simply cut down on the amount of families affected by limiting the types of weapons available to be used to commit such crimes.

[appbio91]

I disagree with you entirely...................

The muzzel velocity of a 9mm vs a .223 bushmaster is 2.5 less. 1400 verses 3500 ft per sec.
But I guess it doesn't matter when you are killing 6 year old kids..............Yes it does. And I'm moving from the right to the left on this issue and most of America is right there with me. Enough is enough.

I disagree with you too. Totally.
Just one more question. Could someone with a pistol with multiple magazines done the same thing even without an ar-15? The answer of course is yes.
Getting rid of ar's is a political move only imo, when others can do the exact same thing with pistols. THESE SHOOTINGS WILL NOT STOP BY GETTING RID OF ARs.
Jmo...

You need to ask yourself why these people dress up in assault gear, body armor and such and then choose an AR to kill people. They have a fantasy about how they want to go out and spraying. bullets with basically an M16 fits the picture. I am going to get really radical here and say that the congress that let the AR ban lapse has blood on their hands (assuming the weapon was purchased in the past 8 years).

By that philosophy you can also say every congress since the expiration has blood on their hands, as they didn't re-institute the ban. I'm not saying whether I'm one way or the other on gun control, but you can't arbitrarily pick one congress and say it's their fault without saying it is also the fault of each congress since then. All of those congresses had the same ability to pass the same law, assuming it's anyone's fault.

I think an argument could be made that it is no one and everyone's fault. The kid had mental issues and our society doesn't treat mental illness, we whisk it away some of the time and ignore it the remainder of the time. To that affect, every person that has ever walked by this kid is at fault for not helping right?

Point is discuss mental health, gun control and all of that jazz, but I don't think trying to place blame on any one person or group of people is productive at all.

Our government failed plain and simple. As long as we continue to fear the repercussions of voting for reasonable gun control these kinds of acts will continue. They will continue if gun control is the only piece of the puzzle as well.

[Yosef]

When's the last time a group of people stormed the presidents house blasting weapons that would require the security to use ar's?
I can't recall any but yet his house is guarded with these type weapons.
Things that make ya go hummmmmmm.
Give them bolt actions, then we can talk...

Research my friend research.
http://www.history.com/news/a-history-o ... se-attacks

Being in law enforcement I feel we should most certainly have more powerful guns as thos doing to harm. We are highly trained and go through full psych elavuation and are far more stable than society at large.

Quit claiming law enforcement. You worked in law enforcement for a year at best.

[Yosef]

Ideally ok.
Realistically gun control will never stop mass killings. It'll only make people feel like they've done something to stop it and to feel better.

Nothing will ever stop mass killing.After all a person pulls the trigger. I just want to simply cut down on the amount of families affected by limiting the types of weapons available to be used to commit such crimes.

And the unintended consequence of banning assault rifles will be homemade bombs that take out 4 classrooms instead of 2. Are we going to ban those next? I'm pretty sure they are already banned. But we know that banning something makes it difficult to get right?

[ASUPATCH]

When's the last time a group of people stormed the presidents house blasting weapons that would require the security to use ar's?
I can't recall any but yet his house is guarded with these type weapons.
Things that make ya go hummmmmmm.
Give them bolt actions, then we can talk...

Research my friend research.
http://www.history.com/news/a-history-o ... se-attacks

Being in law enforcement I feel we should most certainly have more powerful guns as thos doing to harm. We are highly trained and go through full psych elavuation and are far more stable than society at large.

Quit claiming law enforcement. You worked in law enforcement for a year at best.

I am a CJ major. BLET graduate. And have spent three years as a law enforcement officer. While employed I was on the gang unit and fugitive apprehension team. Im also a gun owner. In the 8 years I have known you you have never uttered the word gun. But I guess this fits your political agenda? Cant attack the post attack the poster huh? I though admin were supposed to control personal attacks not start them. Im sure your job in financial investments makes you more qualified? I have a letter from the department of public safety for your viewing if I must post it for everyone to see. Do you want my commanding officers name? Are you kidding me? Try and call me out on my experience? How does that insurance degree qaulify you to talk on the issue?

[ASUPATCH]

Ideally ok.
Realistically gun control will never stop mass killings. It'll only make people feel like they've done something to stop it and to feel better.

Nothing will ever stop mass killing.After all a person pulls the trigger. I just want to simply cut down on the amount of families affected by limiting the types of weapons available to be used to commit such crimes.

And the unintended consequence of banning assault rifles will be homemade bombs that take out 4 classrooms instead of 2. Are we going to ban those next? I'm pretty sure they are already banned. But we know that banning something makes it difficult to get right?

Way to contradict youself. You say it is what they will turn to. Then you say it is already available. Why would they turn to it if it is already available? Banning something does in fact make it more difficult to get. What it easier to go out and get in the next day, beer or heroine? Thats right one is illegal and would take more time to get a hold of. The time and effort to obtain an illegal assualt rifle and high cap mag may in an of itself help to deter the action.

[ASUPATCH]

Oh you got me. Just looked it up June 8th 2009 hire date. Last day of service March 2nd 2012. So it was 2 years and 10 monthes. Add to that 5 monthes of BLET training and in service firarms training every year.

[Yosef]

Oh you got me. Just looked it up June 8th 2009 hire date. Last day of service March 2nd 2012. So it was 2 years and 10 monthes. Add to that 5 monthes of BLET training and in service firarms training every year.

You can't add in service firearms training to your tenure - that's double counting your time

[ASUPATCH]

Oh you got me. Just looked it up June 8th 2009 hire date. Last day of service March 2nd 2012. So it was 2 years and 10 monthes. Add to that 5 monthes of BLET training and in service firarms training every year.

You can't add in service firearms training to your tenure - that's double counting your time

Let me teach you about law enforcement. In service firearms training is 1 week a year.

[Yosef]

Oh you got me. Just looked it up June 8th 2009 hire date. Last day of service March 2nd 2012. So it was 2 years and 10 monthes. Add to that 5 monthes of BLET training and in service firarms training every year.

You can't add in service firearms training to your tenure - that's double counting your time

Let me teach you about law enforcement. In service firearms training is 1 week a year.

What's your point? That doesn't mean you get to count that week as 2 weeks does it? If it does - you should be demanding double pay!

[AppGrad1]

Question:
Let's say ar's are banned. Been 2 years and they are hard to get anymore.
There have been 6 or 7 mass shootings since with semi auto pistols. Gunman had multiple magazines. Dozens and dozens of women and children were involved.
What now?
Let's get rid of what now?

Politicians will have to come up with something, right?

[ASUPATCH]

Question:
Let's say ar's are banned. Been 2 years and they are hard to get anymore.
There have been 6 or 7 mass shootings since with semi auto pistols. Gunman had multiple magazines. Dozens and dozens of women and children were involved.
What now?
Let's get rid of what now?

Politicians will have to come up with something, right?

Thats a good question. Thats why I also proposed you hire a trained officer for every school. An extra 35k a year per school is well worth our childrens safety. But as far as non school shootings that is a very good question. Does it open up a slippery slope? Maybe, maybe not. What if we dont ban AR's or high cap mags? And the next shooting kills 40-50 kids? You can what if it to death. But what we do know is that AR's with the high cap mags are far more deadly per second than other low capacity options.