#oneless - most hysterical new antigun meme...

[XtremeJibber2001]

I can’t imagine the authors of the 2nd Amendment envisioned such a scenario. Maybe time to admit we have a problem, Egh?

I still don’t understand any legimate use for any style of guns that are designed for anything other than hunting. The solution is certainly not more guns and anyone arguing that having an AK is going to help them defend themselves against the US military is just silly.

The authors of the 2nd amendment envisioned EXACTLY that scenario - the need a for a citizenry capable of their own self defense. You need to understand the freedom from a government taking that basic right away from the people. From your writing it appears you don't understand that. That the founders might have envisioned the British instead of a wacked out teenager is just details. They understood the most basic right of self defense.

Herein lies the problem and why many voices cannot be heard because to have an opinion means we must make the issue black or white - there is no middle ground. My opinion is not black or white, but you so easily cast me as (1) being in favor of taking away the right to bear arms, or (2) not understanding the 2nd amendment. Never mind that I am a gun owner, but I digress.

You enjoy a peaceful neighborhood and workplace, and you enjoy a military and police force that keeps many of the threats at bay. Why oh why must we get our hands dirty and think about protecting ourselves when these other folks do such an adequate job of it? And you can make the choice to be disarmed. The odds are you won't need a weapon in your lifetime. However it is your right to be prepared, should you choose to do so. Should a threat move into your comfortable world.

More sweeping statements introducing things to which I didn't say. I've made my choice to be armed as noted above. What I believe in is regulation. Do you believe in the right to buy fully automatic machine guns, RPGs, tanks, APCs, etc. No? Then you, too, believe in some reasonable degree of regulation. Otherwise, why should these be regulated but an AR-15 is not? I am in favor of regulations being expanded to limit firearms capable of mass murder. I am no expert so I can't say which firearms should be regulated, but common sense suggests the outcome of Vegas (1,100+ shots in <10 minutes), Sandy Hook (154 shots in <5 minutes), and Florida (150 shots in <4 minutes) would be vastly different if the shooter was limited to a standard shotgun and/or a handgun with standard clip. Notice I say regulated, not banned. Perhaps it's regulation of clip sizes, number of bullets you can buy at a time, expanded background checks for types of guns or clip sizes, etc. It doesn't have to be an outright ban.

Are there fire extinguishers in your house? Why? Why in the world would you want to stay in a burning house and risk death? Why not just run? The fire department will be there in just 4-10 minutes.... And the odds are you won't need it ever anyway.

The analogy doesn't help change my view above. If fire extinguishers were used to inflict mass murder among school children, you can bet my view would be different.

If students in a school start yanking fire extinguishers off the wall and spray students in the face, an entire classroom of kids with chemicals in their eyes, are we going to start locking up fire extinguishers? Or eliminate readily available extinguishers in the hallways?

The analogy doesn't help change my view above. At my high school fire extinguishers were behind a thin pane of safety glass you had to break in order to use it ... to mitigate the type of scenario you describe. A little thought into mitigating events through some regulation can act as a deterrent.

As to your other comment, a semi-automatic rifle is a semi-automatic rifle. One trigger pull, one bullet. Same for a revolver or a pistol. It doesn't matter if it looks scary. All guns look scary to me. I can't think of a friendly looking gun.

It matters. See the shots fired totals above. It's unreasonable and illogical to suggest a single shot from a .22 is the same as a .357 and is the same as a 5.56 NATO.

I think the luxury of your own personal secure feeling blinds you to the needs of those who are not so secure. Should a pilot have a gun? Should a woman who works late and sometimes walks through a parking garage alone? Did the founders envision airborne Islamic terrorism? Did the founders envision women working outside the home late at night?

Who should make that decision to carry for me, for us... you? The ones who can't imagine?

Hopefully for you, not Trump, who believes in taking the guns first and going through due process second. The decision should be made by the people through our legislative process.

[....Lots of statistics....]More guns = more gun related deaths. Yes, it’s really that simple.

Gosh. Imagine that. I suppose if there were zero guns, there would be zero gun deaths. You needed a graph for that? A far better question is how many assaults, robberies and murders were stopped with the use of a gun?)

On average, there were 67,740 occurrences a year for self-protection behaviors using a firearm by victims of attempted or completed crime over the five-year period 2007 through 2011. In 2012, there was 259 justifiable gun-related homicides, or incidents in which authorities ruled that killings occurred in self-defense.

In 2013, there were 107,141 occurrences of injury or death by firearm (73,505 injuries and 33,636 deaths).

I suppose this suggests more guns are necessary.

[brownman]

Yeah Gump .. Confiscate all the guns first .. due process is just a formality ..
What did the framers intend by the term 'well-regulated'

Few would bring a fire extinguisher to a gun fight.
'In case of 'gun'-fire, break glass'
Some of those protective enclosures contain axes ..

19 year old's don't need arsenals.

[Mister Moose]

Never mind that I am a gun owner, but I digress.

I am no expert so I can't say which firearms should be regulated, but common sense suggests the outcome of Vegas (1,100+ shots in <10 minutes), Sandy Hook (154 shots in <5 minutes), and Florida (150 shots in <4 minutes) would be vastly different if the shooter was limited to a standard shotgun and/or a handgun with standard clip. Notice I say regulated, not banned. Perhaps it's regulation of clip sizes, number of bullets you can buy at a time, expanded background checks for types of guns or clip sizes, etc. It doesn't have to be an outright ban.

Watch this video, and there are many others on youtube.



Notice in particular how the runner doesn't have time to tackle from 25 feet a barely trained woman with a 10 round magazine handgun, the number passed in CT after Sandy Hook. Aldo, the non professional fires a 10 round magazine at the rate of 25 seconds for 30 shots. That's 360 shots in 5 minutes, compared to your quoted 150 shots in 4-5 minutes for the school active shooter with a larger magazine.

These are ineffective laws that are made to make you feel better at the expense of law abiding citizens.

Just because you might be a gun owner doesn't mean you understand the 2nd amendment any better than a non gun owner. You advocate no rifles for civilians in the above quote.

More later when I have time.

[Dr. NO]

Never mind that I am a gun owner, but I digress.

I am no expert so I can't say which firearms should be regulated, but common sense suggests the outcome of Vegas (1,100+ shots in <10 minutes), Sandy Hook (154 shots in <5 minutes), and Florida (150 shots in <4 minutes) would be vastly different if the shooter was limited to a standard shotgun and/or a handgun with standard clip. Notice I say regulated, not banned. Perhaps it's regulation of clip sizes, number of bullets you can buy at a time, expanded background checks for types of guns or clip sizes, etc. It doesn't have to be an outright ban.

Watch this video, and there are many others on youtube.



Notice in particular how the runner doesn't have time to tackle from 25 feet a barely trained woman with a 10 round magazine handgun, the number passed in CT after Sandy Hook. Aldo, the non professional fires a 10 round magazine at the rate of 25 seconds for 30 shots. That's 360 shots in 5 minutes, compared to your quoted 150 shots in 4-5 minutes for the school active shooter with a larger magazine.

These are ineffective laws that are made to make you feel better at the expense of law abiding citizens.

Just because you might be a gun owner doesn't mean you understand the 2nd amendment any better than a non gun owner. You advocate no rifles for civilians in the above quote.

More later when I have time.

Xjibber needs to bone up on Clips vs. Magazines. Magazine is a spring loaded contained loader which goes below a rifle load port or handle of a semi auto pistol. Clips are cartridge clips you place your bullets into. To load the weapon i.e. a M1A1, you place the clip over the load port and push the bullets from the clip into the weapon then toss the clip aside.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Never mind that I am a gun owner, but I digress.

I am no expert so I can't say which firearms should be regulated, but common sense suggests the outcome of Vegas (1,100+ shots in <10 minutes), Sandy Hook (154 shots in <5 minutes), and Florida (150 shots in <4 minutes) would be vastly different if the shooter was limited to a standard shotgun and/or a handgun with standard clip. Notice I say regulated, not banned. Perhaps it's regulation of clip sizes, number of bullets you can buy at a time, expanded background checks for types of guns or clip sizes, etc. It doesn't have to be an outright ban.

Watch this video, and there are many others on youtube.

Notice in particular how the runner doesn't have time to tackle from 25 feet a barely trained woman with a 10 round magazine handgun, the number passed in CT after Sandy Hook. Aldo, the non professional fires a 10 round magazine at the rate of 25 seconds for 30 shots. That's 360 shots in 5 minutes, compared to your quoted 150 shots in 4-5 minutes for the school active shooter with a larger magazine.

These are ineffective laws that are made to make you feel better at the expense of law abiding citizens.

Just because you might be a gun owner doesn't mean you understand the 2nd amendment any better than a non gun owner. You advocate no rifles for civilians in the above quote.

More later when I have time.

You overlook some things in your comparison:

Damage to the human body by a handgun versus a rifle.
Velocity of a shot from a handgun versus a rifle.
Capability of a handgun to be converted to full auto.

Not to mention if it makes no difference in number of shots then we should all agree the need for AR-15's and other similarly powered rifles and their bullets should be more regulated. No where did I say no rifles for civilians.

As for understanding the 2nd amendment perhaps you could answer my questions on whether you believe in the right to buy fully automatic machine guns, RPGs, tanks, APCs, etc. and why should these be regulated but not an AR-15?

[madhatter]

Never mind that I am a gun owner, but I digress.

I am no expert so I can't say which firearms should be regulated, but common sense suggests the outcome of Vegas (1,100+ shots in <10 minutes), Sandy Hook (154 shots in <5 minutes), and Florida (150 shots in <4 minutes) would be vastly different if the shooter was limited to a standard shotgun and/or a handgun with standard clip. Notice I say regulated, not banned. Perhaps it's regulation of clip sizes, number of bullets you can buy at a time, expanded background checks for types of guns or clip sizes, etc. It doesn't have to be an outright ban.

Watch this video, and there are many others on youtube.

Notice in particular how the runner doesn't have time to tackle from 25 feet a barely trained woman with a 10 round magazine handgun, the number passed in CT after Sandy Hook. Aldo, the non professional fires a 10 round magazine at the rate of 25 seconds for 30 shots. That's 360 shots in 5 minutes, compared to your quoted 150 shots in 4-5 minutes for the school active shooter with a larger magazine.

These are ineffective laws that are made to make you feel better at the expense of law abiding citizens.

Just because you might be a gun owner doesn't mean you understand the 2nd amendment any better than a non gun owner. You advocate no rifles for civilians in the above quote.

More later when I have time.

You overlook some things in your comparison:

Damage to the human body by a handgun versus a rifle.
Velocity of a shot from a handgun versus a rifle.
Capability of a handgun to be converted to full auto.

Not to mention if it makes no difference in number of shots then we should all agree the need for AR-15's and other similarly powered rifles and their bullets should be more regulated. No where did I say no rifles for civilians.

As for understanding the 2nd amendment perhaps you could answer my questions on whether you believe in the right to buy fully automatic machine guns, RPGs, tanks, APCs, etc. and why should these be regulated but not an AR-15?

define "AR-15" and what differentiates it from say this:



or this:

[brownman]

.. bizarre .. Moose is now somehow an authority on the 2nd Amendment .. ?
(.. couldn't 'muster' enuf support to even keep a lift alive .. )

Not even the Supreme Court can make sense of the 2A language
.. hands-off my 'well-regulated' rocket launcher ..

[Mister Moose]

Never mind that I am a gun owner, but I digress.

I am no expert so I can't say which firearms should be regulated, but common sense suggests the outcome of Vegas (1,100+ shots in <10 minutes), Sandy Hook (154 shots in <5 minutes), and Florida (150 shots in <4 minutes) would be vastly different if the shooter was limited to a standard shotgun and/or a handgun with standard clip. Notice I say regulated, not banned. Perhaps it's regulation of clip sizes, number of bullets you can buy at a time, expanded background checks for types of guns or clip sizes, etc. It doesn't have to be an outright ban.

Watch this video, and there are many others on youtube.

Notice in particular how the runner doesn't have time to tackle from 25 feet a barely trained woman with a 10 round magazine handgun, the number passed in CT after Sandy Hook. Aldo, the non professional fires a 10 round magazine at the rate of 25 seconds for 30 shots. That's 360 shots in 5 minutes, compared to your quoted 150 shots in 4-5 minutes for the school active shooter with a larger magazine.

These are ineffective laws that are made to make you feel better at the expense of law abiding citizens.

Just because you might be a gun owner doesn't mean you understand the 2nd amendment any better than a non gun owner. You advocate no rifles for civilians in the above quote.

More later when I have time.

You overlook some things in your comparison:

Damage to the human body by a handgun versus a rifle.
Velocity of a shot from a handgun versus a rifle. I don't understand the relevance of these 3 statements.
Capability of a handgun to be converted to full auto.

Not to mention if it makes no difference in number of shots then we should all agree the need for AR-15's and other similarly powered rifles and their bullets should be more regulated. No foundation for this argument. No where did I say no rifles for civilians. Highlighted in blue for you.

As for understanding the 2nd amendment perhaps you could answer my questions on whether you believe in the right to buy fully automatic machine guns, RPGs, tanks, APCs, etc. and why should these be regulated but not an AR-15?

I didn't write those laws. The dividing line between legal and illegal arms is something that was never done correctly - with an amendment to the constitution. So you end up with a mishmash of laws that could be challenged in court. No one has tried to challenge the right to own an RPG, but many challenges have been made in court on more conventional arms. I don't claim to have the magic answer, but I am aware that many NRA members think regulation has gone far enough, and I would tend to agree. Specifically on the AR-15, tell me what about it you want to regulate, vs other semi automatic rifles.

[XtremeJibber2001]

I didn't write those laws. The dividing line between legal and illegal arms is something that was never done correctly - with an amendment to the constitution. So you end up with a mishmash of laws that could be challenged in court. No one has tried to challenge the right to own an RPG, but many challenges have been made in court on more conventional arms. I don't claim to have the magic answer, but I am aware that many NRA members think regulation has gone far enough, and I would tend to agree. Specifically on the AR-15, tell me what about it you want to regulate, vs other semi automatic rifles.

The line between the two should be redrawn. That's all I'm saying. It's easier to buy a firearm than it is to get a driver's license. I think that's wrong.

Something different has to happen. We can't just sit and watch children get shot and killed in school like we have with President's on both sides of the aisle.

[Mister Moose]

I didn't write those laws. The dividing line between legal and illegal arms is something that was never done correctly - with an amendment to the constitution. So you end up with a mishmash of laws that could be challenged in court. No one has tried to challenge the right to own an RPG, but many challenges have been made in court on more conventional arms. I don't claim to have the magic answer, but I am aware that many NRA members think regulation has gone far enough, and I would tend to agree. Specifically on the AR-15, tell me what about it you want to regulate, vs other semi automatic rifles.

The line between the two should be redrawn. That's all I'm saying. It's easier to buy a firearm than it is to get a driver's license. I think that's wrong.

Something different has to happen. We can't just sit and watch children get shot and killed in school like we have with President's on both sides of the aisle.

Abuse in government is why the Bill of Rights is there. I have felt the vindictive unfair thumb of government. I even saw a judge ignore the constitutional right to trial and impose sentence without any due process. (It was overturned on appeal) It leaves a taste in your mouth.

You need to find the cause. (Of children getting shot) You are trying to regulate the tool, and ignore the very reason the tool exists in our history. What you missed in my fire extinguisher example is that it too is a tool that can inflict harm. Just because the current fad isn't to use fire extinguishers in a classroom attack doesn't make them any safer.

Your statement "It's easier to buy a firearm than it is to get a driver's license. I think that's wrong." ignores the profound reason for the Bill of Rights. Those rights are reserved to the people. They are not reserved to the government to regulate. And before you bring up the tired "yell fire in a crowded theater" argument, that is not speech. It is incitement to stampede. There is no transfer of information, there is only induced panic.

Drowning (6.1/100.000) causes far more death than firearms (3.5/100,000) ... why aren't you outlawing swimming pools, tubs, and beaches? 350 drownings a year are children under 5 years old. Are you going to sit by and watch more children die in pool accidents? Should we outlaw pools?

No, because pools have value in our society. Guns don't?

What about the AR-15 do you want to regulate?

[XtremeJibber2001]

I didn't write those laws. The dividing line between legal and illegal arms is something that was never done correctly - with an amendment to the constitution. So you end up with a mishmash of laws that could be challenged in court. No one has tried to challenge the right to own an RPG, but many challenges have been made in court on more conventional arms. I don't claim to have the magic answer, but I am aware that many NRA members think regulation has gone far enough, and I would tend to agree. Specifically on the AR-15, tell me what about it you want to regulate, vs other semi automatic rifles.

The line between the two should be redrawn. That's all I'm saying. It's easier to buy a firearm than it is to get a driver's license. I think that's wrong.

Something different has to happen. We can't just sit and watch children get shot and killed in school like we have with President's on both sides of the aisle.

Abuse in government is why the Bill of Rights is there. I have felt the vindictive unfair thumb of government. I even saw a judge ignore the constitutional right to trial and impose sentence without any due process. (It was overturned on appeal) It leaves a taste in your mouth.

You need to find the cause. (Of children getting shot) You are trying to regulate the tool, and ignore the very reason the tool exists in our history. What you missed in my fire extinguisher example is that it too is a tool that can inflict harm. Just because the current fad isn't to use fire extinguishers in a classroom attack doesn't make them any safer.

Your statement "It's easier to buy a firearm than it is to get a driver's license. I think that's wrong." ignores the profound reason for the Bill of Rights. Those rights are reserved to the people. They are not reserved to the government to regulate. And before you bring up the tired "yell fire in a crowded theater" argument, that is not speech. It is incitement to stampede. There is no transfer of information, there is only induced panic.

Drowning (6.1/100.000) causes far more death than firearms (3.5/100,000) ... why aren't you outlawing swimming pools, tubs, and beaches? 350 drownings a year are children under 5 years old. Are you going to sit by and watch more children die in pool accidents? Should we outlaw pools?

No, because pools have value in our society. Guns don't?

What about the AR-15 do you want to regulate?

I am okay with finding the cause, but there must be mitigations put in place in the meantime. We significantly sacrificed elements of our personal privacy and freedom of movement and spent trillions, without even the blink of an eye after 9/11, we're already at ~500 children shot and killed in school and have done nothing but sit back and watch.

Why aren't I outlawing swimming pools? Drowning is rarely something inflicted on someone by another. Do you have children?

Guns play a huge role in society. I'd argue our nation was basically built on it so I get it. It doesn't mean we can't change. We regulate someone's ability to buy a 50 caliber machine gun and this regulation can be expanded to include other arms.

Regulation could start with reintroducing the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 and close the inherent loopholes in the ban.

[madhatter]

I didn't write those laws. The dividing line between legal and illegal arms is something that was never done correctly - with an amendment to the constitution. So you end up with a mishmash of laws that could be challenged in court. No one has tried to challenge the right to own an RPG, but many challenges have been made in court on more conventional arms. I don't claim to have the magic answer, but I am aware that many NRA members think regulation has gone far enough, and I would tend to agree. Specifically on the AR-15, tell me what about it you want to regulate, vs other semi automatic rifles.

The line between the two should be redrawn. That's all I'm saying. It's easier to buy a firearm than it is to get a driver's license. I think that's wrong.

Something different has to happen. We can't just sit and watch children get shot and killed in school like we have with President's on both sides of the aisle.

Abuse in government is why the Bill of Rights is there. I have felt the vindictive unfair thumb of government. I even saw a judge ignore the constitutional right to trial and impose sentence without any due process. (It was overturned on appeal) It leaves a taste in your mouth.

You need to find the cause. (Of children getting shot) You are trying to regulate the tool, and ignore the very reason the tool exists in our history. What you missed in my fire extinguisher example is that it too is a tool that can inflict harm. Just because the current fad isn't to use fire extinguishers in a classroom attack doesn't make them any safer.

Your statement "It's easier to buy a firearm than it is to get a driver's license. I think that's wrong." ignores the profound reason for the Bill of Rights. Those rights are reserved to the people. They are not reserved to the government to regulate. And before you bring up the tired "yell fire in a crowded theater" argument, that is not speech. It is incitement to stampede. There is no transfer of information, there is only induced panic.

Drowning (6.1/100.000) causes far more death than firearms (3.5/100,000) ... why aren't you outlawing swimming pools, tubs, and beaches? 350 drownings a year are children under 5 years old. Are you going to sit by and watch more children die in pool accidents? Should we outlaw pools?

No, because pools have value in our society. Guns don't?

What about the AR-15 do you want to regulate?

I am okay with finding the cause, but there must be mitigations put in place in the meantime. We significantly sacrificed elements of our personal privacy and freedom of movement and spent trillions, without even the blink of an eye after 9/11, we're already at ~500 children shot and killed in school and have done nothing but sit back and watch.

Why aren't I outlawing swimming pools? Drowning is rarely something inflicted on someone by another. Do you have children?

Guns play a huge role in society. I'd argue our nation was basically built on it so I get it. It doesn't mean we can't change. We regulate someone's ability to buy a 50 caliber machine gun and this regulation can be expanded to include other arms.

Regulation could start with reintroducing the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 and close the inherent loopholes in the ban.

no thanks...already gone too far as noted earlier...using scary words like "assault weapon" and emotional ploys like " for the children" are nothing but emotion based propaganda ...the cries to "expand" are as never ending as the cries for " fair share"...they can only be met with a firm but resounding NO...

you still haven't given any specifics as to what it is you want to regulate other then "AR-15"s" which you've neither defined nor explained what differentiates them from other arms like the ones I posted above that necessitates their being banned...or are you simply for banning any arms that are sufficient to defend oneself in times of unrest including but not limited to hostile govt take over or collapse of rule of law...

and that is the problem you refuse to give any weight to the concerns set out in our constitution and bill of rights...that we the people give the govt rights not the other way around and that those rights shall not be infringed and that the people shall forever protect the sanctity of those rights from any ill conceived attempts to reduce or otherwise infringe on them...that we've often failed doesn't require one to choose failure again...

those rights may seem laughable to you in current context and one would hope that the day never comes during any of our time here nor do I assume it will...However that day may and likely will come at some point and it's not our place to negate the rights of future generations that were previously preserved for us but to protect those rights so that they may remain inalienable in all perpetuity...

[Dickc]

Do a comparison on the AR-15 and the Ruger mini 14. Tell me if both should be banned. The Ruger does not fit the image of an assault rifle, but uses the same ammunition and can hold a 30 shot clip.

[XtremeJibber2001]

I am okay with finding the cause, but there must be mitigations put in place in the meantime. We significantly sacrificed elements of our personal privacy and freedom of movement and spent trillions, without even the blink of an eye after 9/11, we're already at ~500 children shot and killed in school and have done nothing but sit back and watch.

Why aren't I outlawing swimming pools? Drowning is rarely something inflicted on someone by another. Do you have children?

Guns play a huge role in society. I'd argue our nation was basically built on it so I get it. It doesn't mean we can't change. We regulate someone's ability to buy a 50 caliber machine gun and this regulation can be expanded to include other arms.

Regulation could start with reintroducing the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 and close the inherent loopholes in the ban.

no thanks...already gone too far as noted earlier...using scary words like "assault weapon" and emotional ploys like " for the children" are nothing but emotion based propaganda ...the cries to "expand" are as never ending as the cries for " fair share"...they can only be met with a firm but resounding NO...

I guess we should just tell the parents, siblings, grandparents, cousins, teachers, and friends of the 500+ children shot and killed - TOUGH SH1T!

you still haven't given any specifics as to what it is you want to regulate other then "AR-15"s" which you've neither defined nor explained what differentiates them from other arms like the ones I posted above that necessitates their being banned...or are you simply for banning any arms that are sufficient to defend oneself in times of unrest including but not limited to hostile govt take over or collapse of rule of law...

Sure I did - Regulation could start with reintroducing the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 and close the inherent loopholes in the ban. Gov't take over is a cop out. If Trump does what he says he will do and takes your guns and performs due diligence after the fact, you're not going to shoot up the ATF when they come to your home. If you did, you'd be owned in seconds and be dead by days end.

and that is the problem you refuse to give any weight to the concerns set out in our constitution and bill of rights...that we the people give the govt rights not the other way around and that those rights shall not be infringed and that the people shall forever protect the sanctity of those rights from any ill conceived attempts to reduce or otherwise infringe on them...that we've often failed doesn't require one to choose failure again...

What weight should I give it that I'm not already giving? We can't buy a 50 cal machine gun or M1A1 can we? Maybe you think we should be able to, but I'm merely suggesting the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 and close the inherent loopholes in the ban. It was in place for ~10 years and we all survived. In fact, the ban reduced the number of school shooting victims by 54%, but that wouldn't sit well with your tough love for families of children gunned down in their school.

those rights may seem laughable to you in current context and one would hope that the day never comes during any of our time here nor do I assume it will...However that day may and likely will come at some point and it's not our place to negate the rights of future generations that were previously preserved for us but to protect those rights so that they may remain inalienable in all perpetuity...

Just as regulating those rights, like we already do, are laughable to you because you have no skin in the game. You have no children or grandchildren you have to worry about. It's easy to practice tough love when you never have to challenge your views because, right or wrong, it will never ever directly impact your life.

You are confusing regulation and negation. No one here is attempting to say your 2nd amendment right will be denied, just that it should be more regulated today than it already is (you know, just like you can't buy an RPG).

Do a comparison on the AR-15 and the Ruger mini 14. Tell me if both should be banned. The Ruger does not fit the image of an assault rifle, but uses the same ammunition and can hold a 30 shot clip.

It would be banned just like the AR-15 and was already on the list to be banned in the 2018 version of the 1994 assault weapons ban, which you can read below:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... /5087/text

Congress will not be allowed to sit and watch forever. Small regulatory changes can occur now to slowly drive change or hubris can prevail until there is a 9/11 style attack at a school or otherwise and the changes will be forced down our throats in sweeping fashion (e.g., Patriot Act, DHS, TSA, etc.).

[madhatter]

I am okay with finding the cause, but there must be mitigations put in place in the meantime. We significantly sacrificed elements of our personal privacy and freedom of movement and spent trillions, without even the blink of an eye after 9/11, we're already at ~500 children shot and killed in school and have done nothing but sit back and watch.

Why aren't I outlawing swimming pools? Drowning is rarely something inflicted on someone by another. Do you have children?

Guns play a huge role in society. I'd argue our nation was basically built on it so I get it. It doesn't mean we can't change. We regulate someone's ability to buy a 50 caliber machine gun and this regulation can be expanded to include other arms.

Regulation could start with reintroducing the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 and close the inherent loopholes in the ban.

no thanks...already gone too far as noted earlier...using scary words like "assault weapon" and emotional ploys like " for the children" are nothing but emotion based propaganda ...the cries to "expand" are as never ending as the cries for " fair share"...they can only be met with a firm but resounding NO...

I guess we should just tell the parents, siblings, grandparents, cousins, teachers, and friends of the 500+ children shot and killed - TOUGH SH1T!yeah good one, " if you disagree w me you hate children and want them to die" what do you tell people killed in a car accident, that die from obesity, malnutrition, alcoholism, and a whole host of other things? you can cry us all a river if you like, that's your prerogative..but your cries will fall on deaf ears when they are asking me to give up my rights and the rights of future generations cuz you say so...

you still haven't given any specifics as to what it is you want to regulate other then "AR-15"s" which you've neither defined nor explained what differentiates them from other arms like the ones I posted above that necessitates their being banned...or are you simply for banning any arms that are sufficient to defend oneself in times of unrest including but not limited to hostile govt take over or collapse of rule of law...

Sure I did - Regulation could start with reintroducing the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 and close the inherent loopholes in the ban. Gov't take over is a cop out. If Trump does what he says he will do and takes your guns and performs due diligence after the fact,good god yer ignorant... you're not going to shoot up the ATF when they come to your home. If you did, you'd be owned in seconds and be dead by days end.umm how many ATF vs gun owning s citizens? how many ATF would go along w disarming the population? you make an idiots argument...waste of time having this discussion w you, the answers is just NO, period...

and that is the problem you refuse to give any weight to the concerns set out in our constitution and bill of rights...that we the people give the govt rights not the other way around and that those rights shall not be infringed and that the people shall forever protect the sanctity of those rights from any ill conceived attempts to reduce or otherwise infringe on them...that we've often failed doesn't require one to choose failure again...

What weight should I give it that I'm not already giving? you give it none absolutely none... your premise is " you will be outgunned and killed immediately" try studying history... We can't buy a 50 cal machine gun or M1A1 can we? Maybe you think we should be able to, sure why not, LE, private security etc can own that stuff to protect private citizens...private citizens should be able to protect themselves against those armed details...and FYI you actually CAN buy a full auto or a 50 cal but you need special and expensive permitting effectively pricing out the little guy, you should be outraged over that....but I'm merely suggesting the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 and close the inherent loopholes in the ban. suggestion noted, no thanks... It was in place for ~10 years and we all survived. In fact, the ban reduced the number of school shooting victims by 54%, but that wouldn't sit well with your tough love for families of children gunned down in their school.I highly doubt that cherry picked statistic...maybe if the pussy cop hired to protect that school did his job? maybe if the FBI did its job? we have a system in place , it failed, your plan is to rely even more on that system....again NO...if you want to leave your safety entirely in the hands of the gov, you can,,,you cannot however make that choice for me or for future generations....

those rights may seem laughable to you in current context and one would hope that the day never comes during any of our time here nor do I assume it will...However that day may and likely will come at some point and it's not our place to negate the rights of future generations that were previously preserved for us but to protect those rights so that they may remain inalienable in all perpetuity...

Just as regulating those rights, like we already do, are laughable to you because you have no skin in the game. You have no children or grandchildren you have to worry about. It's easy to practice tough love when you never have to challenge your views because, right or wrong, it will never ever directly impact your life. whatever, more emotion based crap....

You are confusing regulation and negation. No one here is attempting to say your 2nd amendment right will be denied, just that it should be more regulatedso that it's virtually useless as a means of defense... today than it already is (you know, just like you can't buy an RPG).

Do a comparison on the AR-15 and the Ruger mini 14. Tell me if both should be banned. The Ruger does not fit the image of an assault rifle, but uses the same ammunition and can hold a 30 shot clip.

It would be banned WHY? what differentiates it from the Browning BAR and the M1 garand ? pictured abovejust like the AR-15 and was already on the list to be banned in the 2018 version of the 1994 assault weapons ban, which you can read below:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... /5087/textI'm not sure you have any idea why and are merely going along w whatever the bill says without any idea whatsoever as to which guns are on it which are not, and why.......

Congress will not be allowed to sit and watch forever. Small regulatory changes can occur now to slowly drive change or hubris can prevail until there is a 9/11 style attack at a school or otherwise and the changes will be forced down our throats in sweeping fashion (e.g., Patriot Act, DHS, TSA, etc.).

you keep regurgitating tired left wing talking points....no one cares what jimmy kimmel thinks...he can afford armed security 24/7 everywhere he goes....don't plan on seeing any of your emotion based "save the children" BS going anywhere anywhere in congress either...it won't even be discussed...