Another mass shooting deserves a better answer.

Un-freaking-real!

It took you long enough to display the honest callous indifference to loss of life tied directly to the availability of a weapon previously banned.
"So what" about these folk the over 22 in El Paso? The 9 folk in Dayton? Or these folk https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/15/why...ing-at-americas-deadliest-mass-shootings.html

Seems you don't give a damn so long as your paranoia of a gov't gun grab is satiated with an assault weapon pacifier. Thank for showing the readers what you really are.

 

Ultimately, you're just parroting variations of the SOS that was previously deconstructed. The reality is that these SPECIFIC weapons were chosen among a slew of others available (that gunners just love to brag on how much more effective killing machines other weapons not on the AWB are). You're callous indifference for the victims and their families to defend your moronic ideology would be shocking if it weren't so blatant. Let me dumb it down for you: YOU and those like minded advocates in Congress and the media have given the weapon of choice to mass shooters, and then you just blow off the results with "so what? it would have/could have/might have been done with another weapon with the same results".

But I'm dealing with what is, not what might have been. You're finished.

 

Of all the sad words, of tongue or pen, the saddest are these "it might have been".
You could care less for the victims, of whom died via weapons you insist must stay on the open market. A matter of fact, a matter of history. You're done here.

 

1. Man, you do love to blow smoke, don't cha? the "right" you refer to pertains to a MILITIA . And while there are rights, there are rules and regulations (amendments) to insure those rights are not abused by individuals or governments....this is why you can't own the latest military full auto weapons, or flame throwers or grenade launchers. Since people have to "justify' owning a car by REGISTERING IT...and there is no constitutional right pertaining to that...there is no rational reason on God's green Earth why similar registration can't exist for mechanical devices whose sole purpose is to kill (or sharpen the skills to kill). Roo can't cough up any rational for his childish obsession...and you don't have the cojones to answer a simple question as to how your mindset has worked out in recent years.

2. You repeat your statement as if it's a substitute for valid documentation. Hint, it's not. Clearly, you can't provide any valid, documented proof to your assertion. In short, you're lying.

You've displayed intellectual dishonesty and a callous indifference to human life to preserve your warped ideology. The OP stands, and I'm done with the likes of you.

 

Why do such victims matter more than any other victims who have died as a result of felony assault? Is it because so many were killed in the same incident in a short amount of time? Would their deaths hold less meaning if they had been spread out over the course of six hours? Is it due to how minority individuals were targeted for killing rather than white individuals being killed?

The deadliest school shooting in united states history was committed without so-called "assault weapons" of any sort, thus showing double-digit murders committed with firearms can and will continue unabated even if all so-called "assault weapons" could legally be prohibited from public ownership.

 

Again. Would an actual, meaningful difference had been made, if the firearm that was utilized in the commission of the killings was something like this:



A firearm that was specifically designed, from the ground up, to not meet the functional definition for being classified as a so-called "assault weapon" in any fashion, and freely available for ownership in the states that have such prohibitions, yet still very much an AR-15 in terms of its method of function.

Think very carefully before responding to the question as it has been presented to yourself.

 

There is no need necessary for the exercise of a right. You don’t need to vote, you’ll be just fine. You don’t need to express your political opinion, you’ll be just fine not doing that. Need is not something you discuss when you’re talking about destroying a civil right.

And no, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is what we have. The people.

 

For once, a statement presented on the part of yourself is factually correct. Less care could indeed be demonstrated. But not for the reasons that are being assumed on the part of yourself.

In a world where countless murders are committed every single day, one has to pick and choose who is cared about, and who is not. One cannot care for the loss of every single life, by every single means of committing murder, or even mass murder, without driving themselves insane in the process.

No matter what course of action is attempted, no matter how far one attempts to go, nothing is going to change the simple fact that so long as the human species continues to exist, murders are going to continue unabated simply because such is human nature. No amount of effort is going to change human nature, or successfully breed out the desire to murder others for whatever reason, or even no reason whatsoever. Out of all species found in the animal kingdom, the human species is the only one that bases all of its developments and advancements on how to go about killing one another in whatever numbers possible.

Care could indeed be exercised and demonstrated, but ultimately for what purpose? The species as a whole shows no overall desires to preserve itself and work past individual differences, but rather succumb to self-destructive tendencies fueled by the pettiest of justifications imaginable.

 

There is no historical evidence to support such a claim.

Such rules and regulations already exist, and pertain to the misuse of firearms for the purpose of committing harm to others.

Except for the fact that such is not the case. The prohibition on newly produced fully-automatic firearms was implemented in a fit of pure and undisguised political spite in response to the shifting politics in the united states, when the public started caring more about firearm-related freedoms rather than firearm-related restrictions.

Operation of a motor vehicle on a public right of way is not a constitutional right, but rather a privilege granted by government.

Furthermore, the registration process pertaining to motor vehicles has nothing to do with safety. The regulation exists solely for the purpose of taxation and fines, so the united states government can make money off of travel. Such is why even minor traffic infractions that do not pose a risk of harm to others can result in fines for hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

Shall we discuss the nation of Venezuela, and how its government confiscated legally owned firearms that were registered? Or should we discuss the nation of Australia? Or perhaps the actions of the nation of Germany during world war two? How many examples are needed to demonstrated conclusively, beyond reasonable doubt, that firearm confiscation is always and without exception preceded by firearm registration?

 

The SCOTUS has ruled that the right guaranteed in the 2nd is a personal right and does not pertain to a militia. But you know that.

 

Lol, at least there is a .01% whiff of truth to your assertion, however, I would not say that Constitutional textualists don't give a damn - rather, they prioritize the liberty of personal freedoms enshrined for us in the Constitution. The 2A is the cornerstone upon which the rest of our Constitutional rights are undergirded.

Even if draconian semiautomatic long gun (they aint assault weapons) legislation restrictions were to be implemented & they hypothetically decreased innocent loss of life - The price of lost LIBERTY would be too steep, imho. Quite frankly, I believe that the increased loss of innocent life is directly commensurate with the decline of legal gun ownership...

"The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time by the blood of patriots & tyrants." Contextually applicable even today is the hypothetical choice of liberty vs what some are inclined to believe would cause greater societal safety (false equivalency imho). If the loss of innocent life is so damn dire to the 'gun grabbers' why are the Dems so dead set on thwarting the rule of law for known criminals skating through the justice system (particularly the illegal criminal aliens). ICE, Border Patrol & LE from the Feds down to the local constables are thwarted in their efforts to keep us safe from select subsets of the criminal element (likely Dem. voter subsets particularly).

Decline in legal gun ownership being corollary to increased gun violence - is one tenet that I ascribe to as being incontrovertible in the 'gun debate'... Even were the exact opposite to be true, Liberty & personal freedoms should supersede the 'supposed' uptick in loss of life. BTW, point to one gov. implemented confiscatory curtailment of firearms throughout history that did not engender greater usurpation of personal freedoms & the ballooning of governmental or tyrannical control of its citizenry. This is an ideological debate that seems to boil down to the philosophical components of personal freedoms vs. encroachment of '(beneficent, omniscient / omnipresent)' Gov. oversight...

As for myself, I'll choose personal freedoms every damn time, lol...!

 

So if concessions were made, what you call assault weapons banned then that would satisfy you for ever and ever? You won't come after semi auto pistols when the next attacker uses those?

 

Have you ever heard of the saying, the Horse has left the Barn, Well! the Horse left the barn decades ago and people want to try and do something about it now Guns are like the National Debt, the problem is SO! BIG now that it's unfixable sorry to say. Criminals could give a Rats Ass about Gun Control and probably encourage it, because an unarmed victim is gonna be like taking Candy from a Baby. Law abiding American Citizens are always the ones Liberals want to go after first, they want to take Guns away from good responsible people, but allow illegals to try and purchase them without penalty, they want to arrest American citizens for driving while in intoxicated, which they should, but will allow illegals off and free to continue on their way for a DUI, because they fear they'll be reported to ICE and deported. Up here in Seattle, drug infested homeless camps where Women are raped and are Biological nightmares are allowed to continue and everywhere one pops up, crime skyrockets in that neighborhood, but our Liberal politicians want to open safe injection sites and one even conjured up the idea of having Tax payers pay for their Drugs. Guns are going nowhere, so just get that idea out of your stupid noggins, because these Mass shootings are nothing but Political footballs and if Democrats really were in favor of Gun Control, the cities they are in charge of would be Crime less havens, where there are no shootings, but look at Detroit, Chicago, St Louis, Baltimore, Los Angeles and the rest of all these Liberal Havens, they're War Zones. Liberals are just blowing Smoke up peoples Ass's and their supporters are too dumb to realize it.

 

While you make a valid point, it alone is insufficient to deal with the growing crisis. We need strong gun regulations in place now, & every mass shooting that occurs demonstrates that truth again. I've always supported the 2nd Amendment, but the extremism being displayed by the NRA & its supporters now, where they refuse to consider ANY action that could help our suffering society, in favor of keeping their personal right to enjoy shooting bottles, cans & targets, is definitely having an impact on me & my level of support.

 

The system that simultaneously says 'we won't enforce the current laws' and 'we need more laws' deserves to be suspect of a nefarious agenda. Perhaps its merely incompetence, perhaps not. But I'll not be sacrificing my rights for promises of security by such a system.

Lets make attempting to purchase a firearm a fineable offense (like $1000) for prohibited persons. This should encentivise LE to go out and investigate it more often. Until at least some of the tens of thousands of such attempts every year are addressed, I have zero confidence any additional laws will have any effect beyond undermining constitutional rights for law abiding citizens.

 

I think the reason gun supporters are so hard line is our legal system is governed by precedent. That and the fact that the simple solutions proposed mask the hidden agenda designed to get a toe in the door.

 

U just made yourself and ideological commiserator n' friend in me, lol... So very well said - Amen brother! I find myself agreeing w/ Michael Savage less & less over the years, however, he summarily condensed this issue the best (imho) - "Borders, Language, Culture".

 

I agree with you that LE needs to do a substantially better job enforcing already existing laws, but after the new lenient gun laws that took effect 9/1/19 in Texas, I'm of the opinion that new stricter federal gun laws are needed.

 

You lost me on the "hidden agenda" portion of your post. Can you clarify?

 

Confiscation.

 

Care to guess how concerned The Feds are about enforcing existing law - It's 'redonkulously' appalling! Why not fudge the truth a little bit on your next NICS check (Form 4473) Criminals have pretty damn good odds of not even being referred for prosecution - let alone tried n' convicted... But sure, lets pass new 'feel good' draconian gun legislation to give the populace an unfounded pho-sense of safety n' security.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opin...ground-check-prosecutions-20180914-story.html

It’s reassuring that so many felons and other ineligible people were blocked from acquiring guns. What’s not reassuring is how few of them were prosecuted. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives referred just 12,700 cases to field offices for investigation. Of those, the Justice Department prosecuted exactly 12 — one of every 9,333 alleged liars.

 

But did they get the guns?

 

Thank you, nice to hear from someone on this message board that has some of the same feelings I have about the way Democrats love to Politicize every Mass shooting that happens in this country as if they have the answers.

 

Not legally.

Whether they had better success in the black market is indeterminable without investigation, which has not occurred. Though given black market dynamics, its likely that all who 'shopped' there instead were successful.

 

all you've done is just blow smoke that doesn't refute or disprove my previous responses to the other poster. See, to apply your mindset, you don't need the weapons on the 1994 AWB list, as there are a plethora of others that gunners swear are just as effective if not better. You'll be just fine without them.

And for the umpteenth time, gun control is NOT destroying a civil right, as you STILL have access to a slew of weapons. "Need" is indeed part of a civil right...as you NEED the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. If you think otherwise, you are sadly delusional.