Arapahoe HS Shooting

[Brendan]

Before we move forward with this discussion:

Do you know what semi-automatic means?

Do you know the difference between single action, double action, and single action only?

My problem with the gun control debate is that most people who are in favor for more gun control usually don’t know anything up firearms and usually don’t know or understand the thousands of laws we already have in place regulation gun ownership and gun purchase.

And I also think we should define the word ‘necessary’, as “Is a semi-automatic rifle necessary for hunting or home-defense”

The police are great examples, Is it necessary for them to carry sem-auto handguns and rifles for defense. If not, should they be limited to break-action pistols and bolt actions.

Or, could we accept that since there are no fundamental differences between a police officer defending themselves and any other person defending themselves, would a semi-auto then be deemed ‘necessary’ for defense

 

[Geist]

So following your logic, it seems you are arguing that the right to bear arms is limitless in the type of arm, correct? Then how are there restrictions on RPGs, flamethrowers, etc? Aren’t those considered ‘types’ of firearms?

There are no laws governing flamethrowers. You can also buy an anti-aircraft gun (the 40mm Bofors is a popular choice) or an anti-tank gun.

And yes you can buy an RPG with a NFA trust.

All rights have restrictions, so why should the right to bear arms be any different?

No other enumerated right has “shall not be infringed” in the text.

You have to break away from the ‘what’ and focus on the ‘why’. Why is it necessary to own these types of weapons, and does the benefit to society (including safety) of banning these weapons outweigh the functionality of civilians owning them? For this argument, I think you have to look at the utility of why civilians need them, and that’s what answer I’m waiting on.

I’ll agree to give up my arsenal after everyone else gives up theirs first…and I’ll keep them anyway.

 

[Brendan]

I’m not sure, though, how helpful it is for me to practice firing a semi-automatic rifle in regards to those activities - .

OK, Imagine that you are practicing your golf put. Is it more efficient to scatter a number of balls over the green and move from ball to ball practicing your put, or is it more efficient to just use one ball, sink it, retrieve and move it somewhere else,

Or the basketball player who has a rack of balls next to him to practice his free throws with vs the player to shoots and retrieves his ball each time. Which one gets more actual practice in with.

Does that help you understand better?

 

[Cricket2]

So you are saying that if a women is being threatened by her ex-husband that she has to wait 30 days before she is allowed to defend herself?

No one said anything about ex-husbands. But, yes. If he is getting that bad she better work on finding a safe house and restraining orders first. I was stalked for almost 5 years by a nut. Just some fool that worked were I worked. I never purchased a gun.

Just because we are threatened does not mean we should be able to buy a gun at a moments notice.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

Well, I do pay taxes that support the public schools that you never attended, so I don’t know what we’re dealing.

Glib, but wrong. If you and I both have to fund public schools, you and I can both fund the enforcement of the 2nd amendment.

If you want out of the latter, get me out of the former.

 

[Crossbones]

Glib, but wrong. If you and I both have to fund public schools, you and I can both fund the enforcement of the 2nd amendment.

If you want out of the latter, get me out of the former.

You might want to catch up to the later discussion with OldCatholicGuy on this one instead of going so far back in the thread.

 

[freeRadical]

No one said anything about ex-husbands. But, yes. If he is getting that bad she better work on finding a safe house and restraining orders first. I was stalked for almost 5 years by a nut. Just some fool that worked were I worked. I never purchased a gun.

Just because we are threatened does not mean we should be able to buy a gun at a moments notice.

I should be able to buy a gun at a moment’s notice whether or not I’m being threatened. Thank God I live in a state that has instant background checks.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

You might want to catch up to the later discussion with OldCatholicGuy on this one instead of going so far back in the thread.

Ah,the old “you didn’t read every post over 9 pages, and I addressed with you without responding you” trick. If you don’t want to discuss something with someone, don’t quote them and counter their points. Address them directly, or don’t quote them. The post was made a day or so ago. Unless you sit here round the clock, most people come and go. Work, family life, and sleep will eat into my message board time…

I saw his posts, and you are arbitrarily saying what is and isn’t of value to society, which in the end, has no bearing on what gets taxed anyway.

So while you say public education has value for all of society, some would disagree. Either way, it doesn’t matter; we all pay taxes to fund the system. Likewise, whether or not you deem a constitutionally protected right worthy of funding is irrelevant, since it is simply your opinion of what is of value.

I frankly think the country would be better off if a lot of people were not allowed to vote. But that has no bearing on their right to vote (sadly).

 

[Crossbones]

Ah,the old “you didn’t read every post over 9 pages, and I addressed with you without responding you” trick. If you don’t want to discuss something with someone, don’t quote them and counter their points. Address them directly, or don’t quote them. The post was made a day or so ago. Unless you sit here round the clock, most people come and go. Work, family life, and sleep will eat into my message board time…

I saw his posts, and you are arbitrarily saying what is and isn’t of value to society, which in the end, has no bearing on what gets taxed anyway.

So while you say public education has value for all of society, some would disagree. Either way, it doesn’t matter; we all pay taxes to fund the system. Likewise, whether or not you deem a constitutionally protected right worthy of funding is irrelevant, since it is simply your opinion of what is of value.

I frankly think the country would be better off if a lot of people were not allowed to vote. But that has no bearing on their right to vote (sadly).

It’s not really a trick. There is no sense in repeating arguments that are already addressed. If you expect me to have a discussion with you, then you should read through the followups.

Now, I believe you caught up on reading through what I said, but having read through this post, there isn’t much I can say here that I didn’t say in my posts before. So, if you want my response, you are free to read my other posts on this topic.

Have a good evening.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

It isn’t about defense of the country, but defense of the citizenry against a tyrranical government.

^^^This

 

[Lost_Sheep]

So if you don’t believe gun rights should be restricted at all, then do you believe that someone should yell “Fire” in a crowded movie theater without punishment? If so, I’d say you are well on your way to anarchy.

Apples and Oranges. Yelling “Fire” could cause a mass panic which could result in injury or death. Law-abiding citizens owning firearms poses no such threat.

Regarding your statement of tyranny, the first lasting British colony in the United States was at Jamestown, VA in 1607. The Bill of Rights were ratified in 1788. Just shy of 300.

Hair splitting. I’m sure you get my point.

And, while I think the Founding Fathers had wisdom, understanding, and foresight, the truth is that the average citizen had the right to bear arms because we did not have well-established military branches at that time. Branches of the federal military were in existence, but if invading forces came, the expectation was that every able man would throw down his plow, take up his gun, and defend his country.

This part is true.

Now, with a well-established, well-armed military, this is no longer a necessity for defense of country as it was 225 years ago.

But who defends us from the government itself?

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Generally speaking, the firearms used for hunting are actually substantially MORE powerful than the common military ones.

The round used in the AR-15 for example, was originally created to hunt small game, such as raccoon and coyote. It’s not even legal to hunt deer with in Michigan, it’s too underpowered.

The rounds more commonly used, the .,30-06 and .308 were used in the military, for single shot bolt actions in WW-I and semi-autos in WW II. But they were dropped by the military for standard infantry as a solider could carry a LOT more of the smaller rounds, which was useful when the infantry were issued assault rifles like the M-16, which fire fully automatically.

The difference comes in with military machine guns, which DO use the larger calibers.

And yes, the military does use armor-piercing, high explosive and\or incendiary ammo that is generally prohibited to civilian use.

So while the average hunter carries a gun that is more accurate and more powerful that what your average solider carries, the solider does have ammo that goes through brick walls and then explodes.

It should also be mentioned that starting with World War II, from a strategic standpoint, it was more desirable to wound an enemy soldier rather than kill him. (From a tactical standpoint of course, you want to kill the other guy before he kills you.) But if you kill them they are dead. If you wound them, someone has to take care of them and this puts a strain on your war-fighting resources which in the long run gives you an advantage.

So Brendan is correct to say that civilian rifles are often more powerful than military rifles.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

It’s not really a trick. There is no sense in repeating arguments that are already addressed. If you expect me to have a discussion with you, then you should read through the followups.

Now, I believe you caught up on reading through what I said, but having read through this post, there isn’t much I can say here that I didn’t say in my posts before. So, if you want my response, you are free to read my other posts on this topic.

Have a good evening.

I did read though the followups, but i you expect people to read every post in a topic, this must be your first time on a message board. People with lives rarely have time to do that. People address one another all the time without reading entire topics. If you don’t want to be questioned or commended or whatever the response is, simply don’t quote people. People coming back later to address previous posts has been going on here for over a decade.

And in the end, I still did not see anything of value in answering my question. All you did was decide arbitrarily which things paid for out of taxes have value to society and which do not. And that is what you haven’t addressed.

Why should your feelings on what is valuable to society even be relevant in this discussion? They aren’t. That’s the point.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

No one said anything about ex-husbands. But, yes. If he is getting that bad she better work on finding a safe house and restraining orders first. I was stalked for almost 5 years by a nut. Just some fool that worked were I worked. I never purchased a gun.

Just because we are threatened does not mean we should be able to buy a gun at a moments notice.

Yes, but if that person is outside your house and threatening to break down the door, who are you going to call? The police. And guess what? Police have guns!

You refuse to own a gun to protect yourself, but you don’t think twice about calling someone else with a gun (and put their own life at risk) to defend you.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Sons of Divorce, School Shooters

 

[Crossbones]

I did read though the followups, but i you expect people to read every post in a topic, this must be your first time on a message board. People with lives rarely have time to do that. People address one another all the time without reading entire topics. If you don’t want to be questioned or commended or whatever the response is, simply don’t quote people. People coming back later to address previous posts has been going on here for over a decade.

And in the end, I still did not see anything of value in answering my question. All you did was decide arbitrarily which things paid for out of taxes have value to society and which do not. And that is what you haven’t addressed.

Why should your feelings on what is valuable to society even be relevant in this discussion? They aren’t. That’s the point.

Again, if you are going to ask me to debate you, I believe it is reasonable for me to expect that you read my posts, so I don’t have to repeat myself. Whether or not you think it is reasonable is irrelevant, since I am the one to decide if I will take the time to respond. Furthermore, I am not subject to your version of internet etiquette.

To answer your question: any changes to existing law would require people to have ‘feelings’ or, as I like to call them, thoughts on a subject. I expressed my thoughts, which I believe are not overly burdensome on the rights of gunowners, nor outside the constitution. You say my thoughts are relevant. In that case, we are done, because without thoughts, there can be no debate.

Have a good day.

 

[Thomas_Peter]

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.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I understand the terms ‘assault rifle’ and ‘assault weapon’ aren’t in use, but are machine guns and grenade launchers used much in hunting and home defense? That’s what we are talking about - semi-automatic weapons, high-powered, weapons, etc. I’m not in the military and I’ve never owned a gun, so correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t find it implausible that the military uses weapons that are more powerful than ones necessary for hunting. For example, does the military use armor-piercing rounds? And I’m sorry if that is a “Law and Order” term and I sound foolish, I just really don’t know about guns, specifically military issued ones.

-You are wrong in regards to the military using weapons too powerful for hunting. The standard issue M4 or M16 is either as powerful or less powerful as the standard hunting rifle.
-You can go out and buy civilian (i.e. the military doesn’t use them) ammunition that causes much more damage then the standard rounds used by the military. You can also get larger calibers (the M4, M16, AR15 all use the rather small .223 caliber rounds).
-Machine guns (automatic weapons- 1 trigger pull= several rounds down range) and grenade launchers really aren’t a part of this discussion since they aren’t used in mass shootings or the vast majority of gun crimes (fact of the matter is the common “I went to Home Depot for everything I needed” home made bomb is used more then automatic weapons or grenade launchers. Not to many people up in arms about the ability to freely shop at Home Depot).
-Review this picture (too big to post here and I don’t know how to resize it)- farm3.staticflickr.com/2663/5701696602_2ded403f2f_o.jpg The “scary” looking black one is a civilian rifle. The one in a “traditional” wooden stock is what our troops carried into battle during WW2 and Korea (and maybe Vietnam but I’m not sure and don’t feel like looking up when it was phased out of active service). The “scary” looking one is also far less powerful then the “safer” traditional looking one.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I personally don’t believe there should be any restrictions on any types of firearms; military-types included.

I disagree with this. Reasonable regulation of small arms by the state government and reasonable regulation of automatic and large caliber (mortars, arty, grenades, etc) by the state and federal governments is well within the intent and wording of the 2nd Amendment; and the legal restrictions/limitations placed on other rights out of concern for public safety (yelling “Fire!” for example). Had the writers of the Constitution not envisioned some sort of regulation/restrictions they would have left the part about a regulated militia out of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Ah,the old “you didn’t read every post over 9 pages, and I addressed with you without responding you” trick. If you don’t want to discuss something with someone, don’t quote them and counter their points. Address them directly, or don’t quote them. The post was made a day or so ago. Unless you sit here round the clock, most people come and go. Work, family life, and sleep will eat into my message board time…

I saw his posts, and you are arbitrarily saying what is and isn’t of value to society, which in the end, has no bearing on what gets taxed anyway.

So while you say public education has value for all of society, some would disagree. Either way, it doesn’t matter; we all pay taxes to fund the system. Likewise, whether or not you deem a constitutionally protected right worthy of funding is irrelevant, since it is simply your opinion of what is of value.

I frankly think the country would be better off if a lot of people were not allowed to vote. But that has no bearing on their right to vote (sadly).

Well you have plenty of time to catch up on the discussion as I am still waiting for Cross to actually respond to several of my points.