Orlando Gay Night Club Shooting

[boogielicious]

6 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

NY Daily Trash finds one marine to speak out against the AR-15 so we should just hand over our rifles?  C'mon you're going to have to try much harder and use more reliable sources than the Daily Trash.  

That is Seth Moulton on the cover. He know a bit more than you about guns.

Quote

Seth Wilbur Moulton (born October 24, 1978) is an American former Marine Corps officer and a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives, representing Massachusetts's 6th congressional district.

After graduating from Harvard University in 2001 with a Bachelor of Science in physics, Moulton joined the United States Marine Corps. He served four tours in the Iraq War and between those tours earned his master's degrees in business and public administration in a dual program at Harvard University.

He entered politics in 2014, running for Massachusetts's 6th congressional district. He defeated incumbent Congressman John F. Tierney in the Democratic primary and then defeated former Republican State Senator Richard Tisei in the general election.

https://moulton.house.gov/news-stories/civilians-have-no-reason-for-owning-assault-weapons-but-congress-lacks-the-courage-to-stop-them/

 

[newtogolf]

Quote

The modern sporting rifle, based on the AR-15 platform, is widely misunderstood. Why? Confusion exists because while these rifles may cosmetically look like military rifles, they do not function the same way. Also, groups wanting to ban these rifles have for years purposely or through ignorance spread misinformation about them to aid their cause.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation asks you to be an informed gun owner and to use the following facts to correct misconceptions about these rifles. Remember, that if AR-15-style modern sporting rifles are banned, your favorite traditional-looking hunting or target shooting semi-automatic firearm could be banned, too.

• AR-15-platform rifles are among the most popular firearms being sold. They are today's modern sporting rifle.

• The AR in "AR-15" rifle stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. "AR" does NOT stand for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle."

• AR-15-style rifles are NOT "assault weapons" or "assault rifles." An assault rifle is fully automatic -- a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934.

• If someone calls an AR-15-style rifle an "assault weapon," he or she either supports banning these firearms or does not understand their function and sporting use, or both. Please correct them. "Assault weapon" is a political term created by California anti-gun legislators to ban some semi-automatic rifles there in the 1980s.

• AR-15-style rifles look like military rifles, such as the M-16, but function like other semi-automatic civilian sporting firearms, firing only one round with each pull of the trigger.

• Versions of modern sporting rifles are legal to own in all 50 states, provided the purchaser passes the mandatory FBI background check required for all retail firearm purchasers.

• Since the 19th century, civilian sporting rifles have evolved from their military predecessors. The modern sporting rifle simply follows that tradition.

• These rifles' accuracy, reliability, ruggedness and versatility serve target shooters and hunters well. They are true all-weather firearms.

• Chamberings include .22, .223 (5.56 x 45mm), 6.8 SPC, .308, .450 Bushmaster and about a dozen others. Upper receivers for pistol calibers such as 9 mm, .40, and .45 are available. There are even .410 shotgun versions.

• These rifles are used for many different types of hunting, from varmint to big game. And they're used for target shooting in the national matches.

• AR-15-style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the 30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag.

• The AR-15 platform is modular. Owners like being able to affix different "uppers" (the barrel and chamber) to the "lower" (the grip, stock).

• And, they are a lot of fun to shoot!

 

[boogielicious]

2 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

 

Quote

I’m a Marine. I carried guns every day in Iraq, guns very similar to the ones used to perpetrate this and many other mass shootings in America. I’ve used guns in combat. On more than one occasion, guns have saved my life. But there’s a big difference between a US Marine with a rifle and a civilian with a gun. I trained for years in order to use my weapon properly. And long before I ever aimed it at an individual, I had to look at pictures of dead and mangled bodies in order to understand the magnitude of what it meant to pull that trigger.

So believe me when I tell you: there’s simply no reason for a civilian to own a military-style assault weapon. It’s no different than why we outlaw civilian ownership of rockets and landmines.

https://moulton.house.gov/news-stories/civilians-have-no-reason-for-owning-assault-weapons-but-congress-lacks-the-courage-to-stop-them/

 

[Gunther]

2 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

That is Seth Moulton on the cover. He know a bit more than you about guns.

 

There are a few liberals in the military, not many, but a few.  Glad he served, but he's just another lefty trying to give the federal government more power.

[newtogolf]

8 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

That is Seth Moulton on the cover. He know a bit more than you about guns.

https://moulton.house.gov/news-stories/civilians-have-no-reason-for-owning-assault-weapons-but-congress-lacks-the-courage-to-stop-them/

 

My dad served in the military and he owns 2 AR-15's.  Who cares?

[boogielicious]

Just now, Gunther said:

There are a few liberals in the military, not many, but a few.  Glad he served, but he's just another lefty trying to give the federal government more power.

Or he has a great deal of experience and understands that these weapons don't belong in civilians hands. There are many "Libs" in the military. All my friends who served are. You dishonor their service when you denigrate them will comments like this.

[xcott]

2 hours ago, Lihu said:

This is a tragic incident, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are still in shock and leave it at that.

I have said the same things for years now, this incident has nothing specifically to do with it.

[boogielicious]

Just now, newtogolf said:

My dad served in the military and he owns 2 AR-15's.  Who cares?

My Dad served in the military and achieved the highest marksmanship level in the military in boot camp. He owned many guns from muskets to hunting rifles. He taught me how to shoot when I was 10. He would have never owned an AR-15 because it serves no purpose other than it's intended military use.

My brother owned an AR-15 but got rid of it after Sandy Hook. Said the same thing.

[Dave2512]

11 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Do you own any guns that you'd be okay with having banned?  

I don't own any that have potential to be banned and I don't believe certain bans open Pandora's Box for deeper bans. When the POTUS says the FEDS aren't coming for my legally owned guns I have a lifetime of ownership that says I can believe that. Nobody wants my ancient 30-30 and the half dozen handguns I have are mostly six-shooters.

A good chunk of the people buying tactical weapons don't have a need for them and while it's within their rights I don't buy into the "just because I can" mentality. Especially if all they do with them is take duck lip pics while trying to look badass so they can post it to Facebook. It's trouble waiting to happen (IMO).

I've mentioned this in every gun thread on this site. I've had a CCW going on 25 years now. I haven't taken a gun out of my house since I moved. I don't even look at them, in fact I forget they are there. I don't live in a dangerous area but even when I did the only time I remember feeling a need to have a gun out for protection, and this will sound silly but there was a bunch of nonsense back then was 12/31/1999. Turned out I ate too many nachos watching old movies and put it away after midnight so I could enjoy some brews.

[xcott]

Just now, Dave2512 said:

26 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Do you own any guns that you'd be okay with having banned?  

 

I own many guns and I'd be ok if any of them were banned. 

[Lihu]

40 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

When the gun shows come around they advertise CCW classes. I know 3 people (my secretary and her kids) that completed the class and were granted a permit and it was more like 2-3 hours. It's classroom stuff not firing range training, mostly covering restricted zones and intoxication are the meat of the class. None of the 3 own a gun, they took their certificates of completion to the Sheriff's Dept. and a couple weeks later received permits in the mail. I'd wager my secretary has fired a gun maybe a half dozen times in her life. No freakin' way I want her waving a gun around.

I'm not going to conclude that all the permit classes are the same, but it's the same in my area. The class costs only $80. I don't expect a lot.

 

36 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

I own many guns. I'd be okay with bans on certain guns.

The issue is if we ban specific guns people will find a workaround to be able to perform the same activities they did with the newly banned guns.

Some mass murders were committed with bolt-action rifles from long distances. Are we going to ban those, and then all hunting rifles?

A Barrett can used from a mile or more away. Well out of range of most normal police snipers. That's scary bad, but again it's keeping it out of the hands of potentially violent mentally ill people.

IDK how to do that? No one does. The root of the problem is something everyone seems to want to avoid. They're trying to find "reasons" and or scapegoats which are weak at best.

How do you know that the typical terrorist is not a violently mentally ill individual who was recruited for that and other reasons?

It's easier to blame a religion or organization rather than finding a treatment for the actual cause because we really have no answers.

[xcott]

51 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

People who want to ban guns are not gun owners, so for them, they have no problem sacrificing a Constitutional right because they don't exercise it.

I own guns and am ok with banning some or even all of them.

[colin007]

i have no dog in this fight, i just wanted to say that i learned a lot from this thread about guns, terminology, legality etc.

we have a serious problem here in Murica.  people seem to think they can fly off the handle and destroy lives when things dont go right for them. so much anger, so much rage. its a societal problem more than anything else.

[Elmer]

26 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

NY Daily Trash finds one marine to speak out against the AR-15 so we should just hand over our rifles?  C'mon you're going to have to try much harder and use more reliable sources than the Daily Trash.  

The problem is you have already had 2 people on here @Dave2512 & myself indicate we are gun owners and would not mind banning some guns. While you can dismiss the Daily news, Rep. Seth Moulton is a veteran and now public servant. Conservatives always value a veteran, until they differ from your beliefs.
 Now that is 3 people. How many do you need?
Once again I will refer you the quote below and compare it to slavery.
 

Name me a slave owner who worked worked to ban slavery?

"People who want to ban guns are not gun owners, so for them, they have no problem sacrificing a Constitutional right because they don't exercise it. "

I should remind you that Abolitionist did not own slaves!!!!

There is the right side and wrong side of an issue.
When people die because you refuse regulate the tools of your hobby, what side do think you are on?

 

 

Edited June 17, 2016 by Elmer

[newtogolf]

7 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

My Dad served in the military and achieved the highest marksmanship level in the military in boot camp. He owned many guns from muskets to hunting rifles. He taught me how to shoot when I was 10. He would have never owned an AR-15 because it serves no purpose other than it's intended military use.

My brother owned an AR-15 but got rid of it after Sandy Hook. Said the same thing.

I respect your choice to not own certain weapons or any weapons at all but that doesn't make your opinion any more valid than mine.   I'd prefer people make more of an effort to fight crime and enforce a death penalty, prevent radicals from entering our country and treat the mentally ill but it seems liberals just are focused on the guns.  

[Dave2512]

3 minutes ago, Lihu said:

The issue is if we ban specific guns people will find a workaround to be able to perform the same activities they did with the newly banned guns.

Some mass murders were committed with bolt-action rifles from long distances. Are we going to ban those, and then all hunting rifles?

I'd be okay renting a rifle for hunting, like I do for skis because it's not something I do often.

I think a mass shooting is defined by three or more victims. We can stop kidding ourselves by pretending there are weapons as efficient as tactical weapons. It would take Steven Seagal like killing proficiency to shoot over a 100 people with a handgun unless they were chained down.

[newtogolf]

4 minutes ago, Elmer said:

The problem is you have already had 2 people on here @Dave2512 & myself indicate we are gun owners and would not mind banning some guns. While you can dismiss the Daily news, Rep. Seth Moulton is a veteran and now public servant. Conservatives always value a veteran, until they differ from your beliefs.
 Now that is 3 people. How many do you need?
Once again I will refer you the quote below and compare it to slavery.
 

Name me a slave owner who worked worked to ban slavery?

"People who want to ban guns are not gun owners, so for them, they have no problem sacrificing a Constitutional right because they don't exercise it. "

I should remind you that Abolitionist did not own slaves!!!!

There is the right side and wrong side of an issue.
When people die because you refuse regulate the tools of your hobby, what side do think you are on?

Stop the dramatics, we're not talking about slavery, we're talking about an inanimate object that cannot hurt anyone unless it's in the hands of someone that wishes to do others harm.  

Why aren't you in favor of an automatic death penalty for anyone that commits a violent crime with a gun?  You're on the wrong side if you don't support a death penalty and reform of how mentally ill people are treated in our country.  

[boogielicious]

1 minute ago, newtogolf said:

I respect your choice to not own certain weapons or any weapons at all but that doesn't make your opinion any more valid than mine.   I'd prefer people make more of an effort to fight crime and enforce a death penalty, prevent radicals from entering our country and treat the mentally ill but it seems liberals just are focused on the guns.  

Liberals focus on doing something including possibly more restrictions or better background checks or more mental health services. Conservatives are being conservative and not wanting to do anything or so it seems from the outside. Status quo is not working.