Arapahoe HS Shooting

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cricket2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
freeRadical said:
Do you know how much an nuclear weapon costs? Do you the materials required, the technology and knowledge required to construct one. If nuclear weapons would be so easy to get as you say then why doesn’t every terrorist organization have one? If possession if nuclear weapons was legal, you act like private organizations would suddenly start selling them like hotcakes.
Click to expand...
First, this is an extension of your argument, so it doesn’t have to be realistic. Secondly, pretty much every country that has nuclear capabilities only allows the government to have the information for how to make them. Make it legal, and I bet you there can be smaller-scale nuclear weapons made at a lower cost. At the very least, I bet it’d make it a lot easier for terrorist organizations to obtain them. As it were, they are not legal, heavily guarded, and heavily regulated, which is why restrictions of weapons have done well to keep them out of the hands of people who will use them unjustly.
 
Mumbles140 said:
I never said the government needs to decide what firearms should be withheld from public ownership, and I’m sorry if that was the implication. The point I have repeatedly made is that a real debate needs to occur by the citizens about what is OK and what is not. I imagine things being ‘not okay’ when the probable threat to public safety far exceeds the benefit of ownership. I would put a grenade launcher in this category. I would put an uzi in this category. I would not put any weapon commonly (or even infrequently) used in hunting or home defense so long as a valid case can be made.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with people owning grenade launchers or uzis as long as I can own one too. But you said that private citizens should not be able to own semi-automatic weapons and those are the most commonly owned weapons and the most commonly used weapon in home defense and hunting.
And you keep making arguments about the government saying this, the government saying that. Why does the government tell me I can’t drive drunk? I can legally drink, and I can legally drive? The path you are going on ultimately gets to the point that the government cannot restrict the actions of others unless it immediately has a negative effect on other citizens. Seatbelt laws, age restrictions on tobacco and alcohol, bans on narcotics, they all go out the window with this line of reasoning. You try and talk just about guns, but the logical extension goes well beyond that
Click to expand...
Well, I’m against seatbelt and helmet laws, those laws were pushed for by the insurance companies. I’m for legalizing all drugs. Now age restrictions and drunk driving are a different beast. You could make an argument for them but it would be flimsy.
Also, at least the government is a collective group elected by every able citizen. Who are you to decide what is best for the country? And who are you to decide that every person can decide what is best for society, since that is what government does - protect society, not 300 million individuals.
Click to expand...
Who are you to decide what is best for the country, best for me? There is a reason we have the Bill of Rights. So my basic, inalienable, God given rights cannot be infringed on by the will of the majority. We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. The Bill of Rights is non negotiable, period. Democracy is tyranny of the majority.
 
freeRadical said:
Exactly, the laws of this country would not stop me from shooting someone. So why do you think more gun control laws would stop school shootings?
Click to expand...
I don’t think they would stop school shootings, but I think it is reasonable to say certain weapons create more destruction, more damage, more fatalities in quicker periods of time than others. Can you imagine how hard it would be to have a mass shooting if we all still had muskets? Or if you had to load a shot after every pull of the trigger?

Also, I have not once made the argument that gun control laws would decrease school shootings or random shootings or whatever. I made the argument that a reasonable society should be able to reasonably state that a very small number of firearms and other weaponry should not be publicly available. That’s it, that’s all, nothing more.
 
freeRadical said:
Why would I be on the government’s radar? How would they know? You think I would shout to the rooftops that I’m trying to get a nuclear weapon?
Click to expand...
If you honestly think the government would have no idea that a private citizen was trying to obtain a nuclear weapon, then I think you should talk with Ed Snowden about how much they know…
 
Mumbles140 said:
But it can be taken away (i.e. insanity or felony), which was your definition of a privilege.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the government made laws that take them away from insane people and felons. It made laws denying people their rights.
 
Mumbles140 said:
If you honestly think the government would have no idea that a private citizen was trying to obtain a nuclear weapon, then I think you should talk with Ed Snowden about how much they know…
Click to expand...
Why would I look for a nuclear weapon in the US?
 
freeRadical said:
I have no problem with people owning grenade launchers or uzis as long as I can own one too. But you said that private citizens should not be able to own semi-automatic weapons and those are the most commonly owned weapons and the most commonly used weapon in home defense and hunting.

Well, I’m against seatbelt and helmet laws, those laws were pushed for by the insurance companies. I’m for legalizing all drugs. Now age restrictions and drunk driving are a different beast. You could make an argument for them but it would be flimsy.

Who are you to decide what is best for the country, best for me? There is a reason we have the Bill of Rights. So my basic, inalienable, God given rights cannot be infringed on by the will of the majority. We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. The Bill of Rights is non negotiable, period. Democracy is tyranny of the majority.
Click to expand...
  1. The thinking “OK for them if OK for me” is not far off from ‘eye for an eye.’
  2. When I used the term semi-automatic, it was an incorrect usage. I clarified that I was using it incorrectly, but the target of my language was weapons that fire multiple shots with a single pull of the trigger. Should I have known better? Probably, but the person described the gun I was firing as semi-automatic, and I wrongly assumed that referenced the multiple shots per trigger pull.
  3. These views are probably why your opinions won’t be compared next to The Republic - they are fine for a life of hermitage, but reprehensible for a functional society.
  4. I don’t understand your last several sentences. I was stating that no individual citizen knows best for the country, so we leave it in the hands of officials elected by the people. And you are right, no rights can be infringed upon, but they can (and should) be legally restricted and regulated through codified laws.
 
freeRadical said:
Why would I look for a nuclear weapon in the US?
Click to expand...
So you are going to do it over the Internet or the phone? Perhaps you’ll be traveling - watch those ticket stubs though. Don’t want to transfer the money through banking, unless you’ve been funneling money into secret bank accounts. Also don’t want to travel with that much cash going through security, so better save up for those bank accounts. And also hope you can get it all done in one trip - don’t want the TSA wondering why an American citizen keeps making trips to remote areas where terrorist activity and other people on plenty of US watch lists interact…
 
freeRadical said:
Yeah, the government made laws that take them away from insane people and felons. It made laws denying people their rights.
Click to expand...
No, it was protecting society, which it is charged to do. If you really believe that everyone should have a gun, whether they are mentally unstable or have committed violent crimes using guns before, then this conversation ends now. I’m serious - please confirm if that is how you feel and I won’t respond to another post of yours on this thread.
 
Mumbles140 said:
  1. The thinking “OK for them if OK for me” is not far off from ‘eye for an eye.’
Click to expand...
Isn’t that how our justice system works? You get a punishment that fits the crime.
  1. When I used the term semi-automatic, it was an incorrect usage. I clarified that I was using it incorrectly, but the target of my language was weapons that fire multiple shots with a single pull of the trigger. Should I have known better? Probably, but the person described the gun I was firing as semi-automatic, and I wrongly assumed that referenced the multiple shots per trigger pull.
Click to expand...
It is already illegal for citizens to own fully automatic weapons without substantial government paperwork and money. I never understood why people think it’s okay for the police and military to possess these weapons and not private citizens. Police and soldiers are still citizens. Do they suddenly become more moral then me when they become police and soldiers. Is the government more moral then me?
  1. These views are probably why your opinions won’t be compared next to The Republic - they are fine for a life of hermitage, but reprehensible for a functional society.
Click to expand...
Why are they reprehensible for a functional society? How to seatbelt laws protect society? They only protect an individual from himself. Is it the job of government to protect me from myself? What good has come from the war on drugs? The war on drugs has done more harm to society then good. Look at the inner cities. Look at all the innocent kids called in drive by shooting by gangs fighting over drugs. Most of the people in prison for drugs are there for minor possession. Families broken up over what?
  1. I don’t understand your last several sentences. I was stating that no individual citizen knows best for the country, so we leave it in the hands of officials elected by the people. And you are right, no rights can be infringed upon, but they can (and should) be legally restricted and regulated through codified laws.
Click to expand...
Has is restricting and regulating a right not infringing upon it?
 
Mumbles140 said:
No, it was protecting society, which it is charged to do. If you really believe that everyone should have a gun, whether they are mentally unstable or have committed violent crimes using guns before, then this conversation ends now. I’m serious - please confirm if that is how you feel and I won’t respond to another post of yours on this thread.
Click to expand...
By the way, a “felony” under federal law need not be violent. For example, passing a bad check when you are 21 will prevent you from purchasing or handling any firearm for the rest of your life. I believe that the statute as written is unjust.
 
Mumbles140 said:
No, it was protecting society, which it is charged to do. If you really believe that everyone should have a gun, whether they are mentally unstable or have committed violent crimes using guns before, then this conversation ends now. I’m serious - please confirm if that is how you feel and I won’t respond to another post of yours on this thread.
Click to expand...
I don’t think they government should be able to deny people constitutional rights based on mental illness. That’s a dangerous line of thinking. First, you can’t own a gun cause you’re mentally unstable. Nest, cause you might be mentally unstable. Next, you can’t own a gun because someone in your family had mental illness. Next, you can’t own a gun because you’re great-great-grandfather on your mother’s side had a mental illness. Government should not be able to arbitrarily decide who can and cannot have a right granted to us by the constitution based on what might occur. That’s a dangerous power to give the government.

Now, about felons. It’s okay to deny felons who have committed violent crimes with a gun the right to own a gun. They made a choice. They exercised their right poorly. I am not okay with deny felons who have not committed violent crimes with a gun the right to own a gun. But why is okay to deny the right to own a gun to a law-abiding citizen? It seems you want to make laws based on what might happen.
 
Mumbles140 said:
So you are going to do it over the Internet or the phone? Perhaps you’ll be traveling - watch those ticket stubs though. Don’t want to transfer the money through banking, unless you’ve been funneling money into secret bank accounts. Also don’t want to travel with that much cash going through security, so better save up for those bank accounts. And also hope you can get it all done in one trip - don’t want the TSA wondering why an American citizen keeps making trips to remote areas where terrorist activity and other people on plenty of US watch lists interact…
Click to expand...
Bid daddy government at it’s finest. You are okay with this?
 
Cricket2 said:
I can only partly agree with you. I think the magazine load should be limited.
Click to expand...
A video of someone using one method of combat reloading (also known as tactical reloading)- youtube.com/watch?v=QbOYGDksIS8 (about a 4 minute video of an instructor talking about combat reloading, example of combat reloading is between 0:08 and 0:14 seconds of the video)

While I don’t exactly agree with the method shown (no need to move the rifle off target while reloading) it shows that magazine size really doesn’t matter as long as we are talking about external magazines. The only time magazine size really matters in regards to semi-automatic firearms with external magazines is when you are on the range doing speed drills against non-moving targets.
 
freeRadical said:
I don’t think they government should be able to deny people constitutional rights based on mental illness. That’s a dangerous line of thinking. First, you can’t own a gun cause you’re mentally unstable. Nest, cause you might be mentally unstable. Next, you can’t own a gun because someone in your family had mental illness. Next, you can’t own a gun because you’re great-great-grandfather on your mother’s side had a mental illness. Government should not be able to arbitrarily decide who can and cannot have a right granted to us by the constitution based on what might occur. That’s a dangerous power to give the government.

Now, about felons. It’s okay to deny felons who have committed violent crimes with a gun the right to own a gun. They made a choice. They exercised their right poorly. I am not okay with deny felons who have not committed violent crimes with a gun the right to own a gun. But why is okay to deny the right to own a gun to a law-abiding citizen? It seems you want to make laws based on what might happen.
Click to expand...
Restricting one’s rights due to mental illness does actually have support within US legal history. An individual can be determined (by the courts) to not be competent to vote. You also have cases in which a person is deemed incompetent to stand trail or make legal decisions for themselves.
 
freeRadical said:
Do you know how much an nuclear weapon costs? Do you the materials required, the technology and knowledge required to construct one. If nuclear weapons would be so easy to get as you say then why doesn’t every terrorist organization have one? If possession if nuclear weapons was legal, you act like private organizations would suddenly start selling them like hotcakes.
Click to expand...
Actually, they’re not all that hard to make. Give me a sufficient amount of U-235, and I can build one using a long pipe and some string. No exaggeration - that’s all a simple fission device would take. The tricky ones to build are multistage weapons (“H-bombs” - the X-rays from the initial detonation need to be channeled just so to compress the fusion fuels and “ignite” them before the force of the first blast scatters them) and plutonium-based weapons (Pu cores need to be compressed to a specific density using an implosion to achieve critical mass). The bigger tricks are getting enough uranium and not killing oneself through radiation or heavy-metal poisoning.
 
oldcatholicguy said:
A video of someone using one method of combat reloading (also known as tactical reloading)- youtube.com/watch?v=QbOYGDksIS8 (about a 4 minute video of an instructor talking about combat reloading, example of combat reloading is between 0:08 and 0:14 seconds of the video)

While I don’t exactly agree with the method shown (no need to move the rifle off target while reloading) it shows that magazine size really doesn’t matter as long as we are talking about external magazines. The only time magazine size really matters in regards to semi-automatic firearms with external magazines is when you are on the range doing speed drills against non-moving targets.
Click to expand...
Revolvers can also be very quickly reloaded with speedloaders.
 
Thomas_Peter said:
Why folks dont see this problem for what it actually is astonishes me. The last time I checked guns didnt have arms,legs or a brain attached to a central nervous system. Guns are inanimate objects.Guns cannot act independently.Guns need a human being to manipiulate them into becoming deadly.Guns need a human being to pick them up,to load them,to point them at another human being and pull the trigger.This problem is and always has been a matter of “mans inhumanity to man”,untreated mental illness,moral vaccuousness and the cheapening of human life. Nothing more.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes guns don’t kill people do. But I sure have a better chance if the thug after me does not have a gun. Cars don’t kill either, drunk drivers do, or drugged drivers. But we do have traffic laws to help keep things safer for all. I simply want stricter control of gun purchasing and use. Background checks and a waiting period prior to purchase just is not that big of a deal, unless you have something to hide.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top