Orlando Gay Night Club Shooting

[Elmer]

13 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

Owning a person and owning a weapon are somehow similar? The lines of connection between the banning of slavery and banning weapons are so weak and tenuous as to be laughable. 

 

Gun owners are indicating it is their right to own and bear arms.

Slave owners used the bible and the law of man to justify slavery.

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."
~Davis

 Yet the issue was addressed for the greater good, by constitutional amendment.

[newtogolf]

21 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

So I suppose he invented it and the M16 for target shooting cans in his backyard. The AR-15 became the M16. That was his design intent. His family, who have made a great deal of money off both designs, knows exactly what it was designed to do. 

We can't determine what his intentions were, he's not alive to tell us.  Obama is alive and half the time he speaks I have no idea what his real intentions are so for Stoners family members to guess or spin a PC story that he'd be against the AR-15 today doesn't hold any weight with me.  

3 minutes ago, Elmer said:

Gun owners are indicating it is their right to own and bear arms.

Slave owners used the bible and the law of man to justify slavery.

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."
~Davis

 Yet the issue was addressed for the greater good, by constitutional amendment.

Show me where slave ownership was in the Constitution.  

[Lihu]

48 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

Rocks were military weapons of the past too. Are you really going to deny technology has improved the efficiency of firearms?

 

Not denying, but acknowledging it! Technology is improving and making our lives more pleasant and efficient. Guns are no different.

For example, if we went to the range to shoot and you brought your 30-30 and I brought a Sig516-patrol, who would have more fun? The 30-30 usually requires a lot of work to load, but I admit that it's a fun gun to shoot. Meanwhile, I would have fired off an entire clip of 5.56 before the horn blows while you're still loading your 30-30 for 2nd or third time.

Personally, I would be more apt to use a Henry .44 because it is way easier to load than a 30-30 and. . .well there you go. Technology to the rescue. The 44 round is obviously not as accurate as a 30-30 but from 100 yards neither rifle is going to be that accurate. The Sig516 would be pretty tight for an off the shelf rifle and way more rounds shot and keeping pace with everyone else on the range***.

6 shooters are yet another animal. If it's the single action type, then you'd probably be spending all your time loading and unloading shells. You can't even get a quick-loader for it. Unless, it's like a modern S&W revolver. Which again, technology to the rescue. Double action and quick loader friendly. Keep pace with everyone on the range***!

 

***Outdoor range with no automatic target return

[xcott]

1 hour 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.

 

The litmus test for a law isn't whether some people will break it once it's enacted. 

[Lihu]

8 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Show me where slave ownership was in the Constitution.  

There's a big debate about the if it was allowed in the original Bill of rights, but no matter what it's in there now as something disallowed by the current constitution.

[Dave2512]

7 minutes ago, Lihu said:

 

Not denying, but acknowledging it! Technology is improving and making our lives more pleasant and efficient. Guns are no different.

For example, if we went to the range to shoot and you brought your 30-30 and I brought a Sig516-patrol, who would have more fun? The 30-30 usually requires a lot of work to load, but I admit that it's a fun gun to shoot. Meanwhile, I would have fired off an entire clip of 5.56 before the horn blows while you're still loading your 30-30 for 2nd or third time.

Personally, I would be more apt to use a Henry .44 because it is way easier to load than a 30-30 and. . .well there you go. Technology to the rescue. The 44 round is obviously not as accurate as a 30-30 but from 100 yards neither rifle is going to be that accurate. The Sig516 would be pretty tight for an off the shelf rifle and way more rounds shot and keeping pace with everyone else on the range***.

6 shooters are yet another animal. If it's the single action type, then you'd probably be spending all your time loading and unloading shells. You can't even get a quick-loader for it. Unless, it's like a SW revolver. Which again, technology to the rescue. Double action and quick loader friendly. Keep pace with everyone on the range***!

 

***Outdoor range with no automatic target return

I get why people do it but I'm not a guns for fun guy. I know what guns are for and it's not play time. It's a weapon not a toy and I wouldn't enjoy going to the range to get my Rambo on.

[Elmer]

28 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

We can't determine what his intentions were, he's not alive to tell us.  Obama is alive and half the time he speaks I have no idea what his real intentions are so for Stoners family members to guess or spin a PC story that he'd be against the AR-15 today doesn't hold any weight with me.  

Show me where slave ownership was in the Constitution.  

It is not.
However the absence of it being in the constitution sent it to the states.
But I would also remind you that it took a constitutional amendment to outlaw something that was not spelled out in the constitution.  

[newtogolf]

2 minutes ago, Elmer said:

It is not.
However the absence of it being in the constitution sent it to the states.
But I would also remind you that it took a constitutional amendment to outlaw something that was not spelled out in the constitution.  

Exactly, gun ownership is a Constitutional Right, apples and oranges.  

[Lihu]

30 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

I get why people do it but I'm not a guns for fun guy. I know what guns are for and it's not play time. It's a weapon not a toy and I wouldn't enjoy going to the range to get my Rambo on.

I just go there to shoot. It's kind of an obsession to try to hit the 10 ring, kind of like our obsession hitting greens in golf.

I don't use them for home defense, but if someone breaks in with body armor I'll be ready. 

[Dave2512]

11 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Exactly, gun ownership is a Constitutional Right, apples and oranges.  

It is but the Constitution isn't etched in stone and was never meant to be a so let it be written, so let it be done forever and ever set of guidelines.

[Elmer]

12 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Exactly, gun ownership is a Constitutional Right, apples and oranges.  

I must fall on my sword and admit that I am wrong....
Slavery is in the constitution, Article 1 section 9. This article prohibits Congress from passing any law to restrict the slave trade prior to 1808

article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3

"three fifths of all other Persons." were counted for representatives and tax purposes.

Once again they were viewed as property just like your gun.
However your "gun" is not listed in the constitution. You have a right to keep and bear arms.
Arms of the day were muskets.
I am sure Jefferson & Washington would have stood behind you on the blood of school children and dead club goers cheered for your right to own a semi automatic!!!

[anthony]

1 minute ago, Elmer said:

Arms of the day were muskets.

This is a point that hardcore 2nd amendment guys seem to forget. Guns took 2 minutes to load back when the amendment was added. Automatic (or very close to it) machine guns did not exist at this time. Armor piercing bullets didn't exist. etc. I'm not saying this as an opponent of people owning guns (which I'm not), just something that I feel is constantly overlooked when using the "right to bare arms" argument.

[Elmer]

2 minutes ago, anthony said:

This is a point that hardcore 2nd amendment guys seem to forget. Guns took 2 minutes to load back when the amendment was added. Automatic (or very close to it) machine guns did not exist at this time. Armor piercing bullets didn't exist. etc. I'm not saying this as an opponent of people owning guns (which I'm not), just something that I feel is constantly overlooked when using the "right to bare arms" argument.

I agree.
In historical context and quickly, the British tried to keep guns away from the colonials & during the war would quarter their troops where ever they want (3rd amendment).
The 2nd amendment was allowing Americans to do what the British tried to deny.
A good solidier could load a musket 3 times in a minutes.

However during the time of the bill of rights, most colonist were in somewhat rural areas.
There were no state funded police force or fire depts. Guns were to protect yourself from poachers and wildlife.

Do you think the founding fathers would have outlawed the AR-15?
 

[newtogolf]

28 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

It is but the Constitution isn't etched in stone and was never meant to be a so let it be written, so let it be done forever and ever set of guidelines.

We are at an impasse, nothing new is being said and I'd rather watch the US Open.  

You will do what you feel you have to in order to ban guns and I'll do what I feel I need to in order to protect my right to own them.  

[Dave2512]

11 minutes ago, anthony said:

This is a point that hardcore 2nd amendment guys seem to forget. Guns took 2 minutes to load back when the amendment was added. Automatic (or very close to it) machine guns did not exist at this time. Armor piercing bullets didn't exist. etc. I'm not saying this as an opponent of people owning guns (which I'm not), just something that I feel is constantly overlooked when using the "right to bare arms" argument.

The counter is always the same, those were the best of the day and somehow there is a 1:1 crossover into modern times. I tend to lean in a different direction in that back then guns played a bigger part in day to day life.

1 minute ago, newtogolf said:

We are at an impasse, nothing new is being said and I'd rather watch the US Open.  

You will do what you feel you have to in order to ban guns and I'll do what I feel I need to in order to protect my right to own them.  

Bullshit and you know it, I've never said I support a blanket gun ban.

[xcott]

It's constitutionally accepted that certain arms can be kept out of civilian hands. 

[newtogolf]

19 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

The counter is always the same, those were the best of the day and somehow there is a 1:1 crossover into modern times. I tend to lean in a different direction in that back then guns played a bigger part in day to day life.

Bullshit and you know it, I've never said I support a blanket gun ban.

It's my belief that once you empower the government to arbitrarily ban one that fully conforms to the existing laws you've provided them the precedent to ban others in the future.  

[Dave2512]

4 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

It's my belief that once you empower the government to arbitrarily ban one that fully conforms to the existing laws you've provided them the precedent to ban others in the future.  

Except that there are many examples where that hasn't happened with regard to the Constitution. IMO the problems stems with the word ban. Substitute regulate and it sounds different.