Yet another mass shooting in California (Page 2): You have it!!!!

Liberty Tree

Seth wrote:

That is exactly right.

Guns didn't just suddenly develop a mind of their own.

But there's more to this left wing anti-gun thing than any real concern (they could care less, not when they're as callous as they are about murdering babies in the womb) for the victims of mass shootings. Their real motive is to disarm the public so that only the (kind of) government they are trying to force on us has weapons.

You have it!!!!

Kevyn

Seth wrote:

That is exactly right.

Guns didn't just suddenly develop a mind of their own.

But there's more to this left wing anti-gun thing than any real concern (they could care less, not when they're as callous as they are about murdering babies in the womb) for the victims of mass shootings. Their real motive is to disarm the public so that only the (kind of) government they are trying to force on us has weapons.

Shoulder fired anti aircraft missiles do not have a mind of their own either, does the second amendment protect the right to keep and bear them?

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

proud republican wrote:

The shooter was Marine Vet who suffered from PTSD 1 month before this tragedy he was screaming in the middle of night in his house and neighbors called police..Police called Psych emergency team. So after evaluating him Dr decided that he was ok. and didnt need to be locked up...1 month later he shot up this place in Thousand Oaks ,k*****g 12 people and himself in a process...So if you want somebody to blame, blame the Dr who misdiagnosed him and not the 2nd Amend!!!

The only person to blame is he who exercised his free will and murdered.

Seth

Kevyn wrote:

Shoulder fired anti aircraft missiles do not have a mind of their own either, does the second amendment protect the right to keep and bear them?

That is such a stupid question/sarcastic remark that it's not even worth considering for more than a few seconds.

bobebgtime Loc: Virginia

BigMike wrote:

I doubt he does.

BigMike, I doubt it also.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Kevyn wrote:

A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Bazookas, grenades, machine guns poison gas, nerve agents anti aircraft missiles and any other weapon no matter how deadly and unnecessary, shall not be infringed

Doesn't matter, Kev. No law you can imagine will make a difference. You're wasting time.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Kevyn wrote:

Shoulder fired anti aircraft missiles do not have a mind of their own either, does the second amendment protect the right to keep and bear them?

See above.

karpenter Loc: Headin' Fer Da Hills !!

There Were 6 Cops In The Joint When He Opened Up

https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2018/11/08/six-police-officers-were-inside-borderline-bar-when-shooting-started/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+breitbart+%28Breitbart+News%29

Trooper745 Loc: Carolina

nwtk2007 wrote:

These 11 k*****gs are equal to how many a******ns??

Guns are k*****g an average of 96 people per day, and that includes suicides, justified shootings, etc. Democrats find that unacceptable????

On the other hand, about 125,000 murders of unborn babies are carried out by being torn apart with forceps, or having their heads crushed by forceps. Democrats find that completely acceptable!!!!!!

As long as someone is getting paid to murder humans, and might contribute some of that money to democrats to keep the laws that allow their getting paid big bucks for murder, .... democrats will fight for the right of doctors to k**l the innocent unborn humans for money, and thereby get some of the blood money for their next e******n. Hypocrites? Definitely!!!

PeterS

Blade_Runner wrote:

Why wouldn't we care? How about you? Do you care? Or is this the start of another one of your ridiculous rants against the 2nd amendment and guns in general?

Well, the only thing I've heard from the right in terms of solutions is that everyone should carry guns and if you don't have a gun then you should charge the shooter--apparently, that was Fox's brilliant observation today. The problem with everyone packing is that there are simply too many nuts out there so putting a gun in their hand and have them look out for trouble is inviting trouble to happen. Now, suppose you don't ask everyone to carry a gun and it's just 'designated' individuals who will be armed--such as with our school system. So how do you establish uniform procedures to weed out the quacks from those who should be carrying a weapon without running the risk of putting a gun in the wrong person's hands who may well become the one causing the trouble and not protecting the children? And if luck holds and everyone who is carrying a gun checks out then the police are still going to have to weed out who is and isn't the shooter. So if nothing else, by having armed civilian you are slowing down the response time that the police and giving a shooter more time to k**l or to escape.

As for the second amendment--it was written because the founders saw one of the greatest dangers to our democracy a free standing army and a despots ability to use it against the citizenry. That was what King George used to suppress the colonialists which is why we were to have a system of states m*****a that could be called up by the governor at the first sign of danger but otherwise could present no danger to the citizenry. This is why they were to be well regulated because a system of m*****a governed by themselves might or might not come to the aid of their government when they were called. But you guys have pissed all over the meaning of the second amendment. Not only do you love a free standing army, you conservatives only complaint is that the military isn't large enough, big enough, or bad enough.

What you guys don't seem to understand though, and what the founders did, was that if there was no military to threaten you then no despot that could possibly suppress you. But we do have a free standing army, plus a US Marshal, the FBI, the ATF, HLS, the national guard, the state police, local police, and any number of private security organizations. Which begs the question of why you need military style weapons? It's not because of the constitution because you've surrendered the original function to the military. So what purpose do you have for military-style weapons--so you can pretend that you are protected from an Obama wannabe? That would seem so...

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

PeterS wrote:

Well, the only thing I've heard from the right in terms of solutions is that everyone should carry guns and if you don't have a gun then you should charge the shooter--apparently, that was Fox's brilliant observation today. The problem with everyone packing is that there are simply too many nuts out there so putting a gun in their hand and have them look out for trouble is inviting trouble to happen. Now, suppose you don't ask everyone to carry a gun and it's just 'designated' individuals who will be armed--such as with our school system. So how do you establish uniform procedures to weed out the quacks from those who should be carrying a weapon without running the risk of putting a gun in the wrong person's hands who may well become the one causing the trouble and not protecting the children? And if luck holds and everyone who is carrying a gun checks out then the police are still going to have to weed out who is and isn't the shooter. So if nothing else, by having armed civilian you are slowing down the response time that the police and giving a shooter more time to k**l or to escape.

As for the second amendment--it was written because the founders saw one of the greatest dangers to our democracy a free standing army and a despots ability to use it against the citizenry. That was what King George used to suppress the colonialists which is why we were to have a system of states m*****a that could be called up by the governor at the first sign of danger but otherwise could present no danger to the citizenry. This is why they were to be well regulated because a system of m*****a governed by themselves might or might not come to the aid of their government when they were called. But you guys have pissed all over the meaning of the second amendment. Not only do you love a free standing army, you conservatives only complaint is that the military isn't large enough, big enough, or bad enough.

What you guys don't seem to understand though, and what the founders did, was that if there was no military to threaten you then no despot that could possibly suppress you. But we do have a free standing army, plus a US Marshal, the FBI, the ATF, HLS, the national guard, the state police, local police, and any number of private security organizations. Which begs the question of why you need military style weapons? It's not because of the constitution because you've surrendered the original function to the military. So what purpose do you have for military-style weapons--so you can pretend that you are protected from an Obama wannabe? That would seem so...

Well, the only thing I've heard from the right in ... (show quote)

Interesting the spin (AKA a lie) you put on the founders and the 2nd Amendment.

Yes! Obama is a great example for a Standing Army, the 2nd Amendment and stopping a despot, and so are you and the rest of the radical America hating, "we want to fundamentally change you," Progressives.

karpenter Loc: Headin' Fer Da Hills !!

PeterS wrote:

Well, the only thing I've heard from the right in terms of solutions is that everyone should carry guns and if you don't have a gun then you should charge the shooter--

Yet, I Don't See A Solution From Across The Isle Except Some Vague
'Common Sense Gun Control'
Sounds Adult Though, Huh ??

I Guess We'll Have To Pass It To See What's In It ??
Because They Ain't Saying What That Is

Magazine Limits, And A Different Stock Configuration ??
That's The Big Cure ??
What's The Next Step When That Doesn't Work ??

Families Can't Just Institutionalize Their Wack Jobs
It's Not A Crime To Be A Ticking Time-Bomb In America

This Bar Shooting Was Done With A Pistol
Not A Military Style Rifle
And He Could Always Have Driven Over Everybody With A Truck At Closing Time

Fit2BTied Loc: Texas

Kevyn wrote:

A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Bazookas, grenades, machine guns poison gas, nerve agents anti aircraft missiles and any other weapon no matter how deadly and unnecessary, shall not be infringed

As usual, Kevyn, you contribute such measured and logical thought. Bless your heart.

Fit2BTied Loc: Texas

PeterS wrote:

Well, the only thing I've heard from the right in terms of solutions is that everyone should carry guns and if you don't have a gun then you should charge the shooter--apparently, that was Fox's brilliant observation today. The problem with everyone packing is that there are simply too many nuts out there so putting a gun in their hand and have them look out for trouble is inviting trouble to happen. Now, suppose you don't ask everyone to carry a gun and it's just 'designated' individuals who will be armed--such as with our school system. So how do you establish uniform procedures to weed out the quacks from those who should be carrying a weapon without running the risk of putting a gun in the wrong person's hands who may well become the one causing the trouble and not protecting the children? And if luck holds and everyone who is carrying a gun checks out then the police are still going to have to weed out who is and isn't the shooter. So if nothing else, by having armed civilian you are slowing down the response time that the police and giving a shooter more time to k**l or to escape.

As for the second amendment--it was written because the founders saw one of the greatest dangers to our democracy a free standing army and a despots ability to use it against the citizenry. That was what King George used to suppress the colonialists which is why we were to have a system of states m*****a that could be called up by the governor at the first sign of danger but otherwise could present no danger to the citizenry. This is why they were to be well regulated because a system of m*****a governed by themselves might or might not come to the aid of their government when they were called. But you guys have pissed all over the meaning of the second amendment. Not only do you love a free standing army, you conservatives only complaint is that the military isn't large enough, big enough, or bad enough.

What you guys don't seem to understand though, and what the founders did, was that if there was no military to threaten you then no despot that could possibly suppress you. But we do have a free standing army, plus a US Marshal, the FBI, the ATF, HLS, the national guard, the state police, local police, and any number of private security organizations. Which begs the question of why you need military style weapons? It's not because of the constitution because you've surrendered the original function to the military. So what purpose do you have for military-style weapons--so you can pretend that you are protected from an Obama wannabe? That would seem so...

Well, the only thing I've heard from the right in ... (show quote)

It never ceases to amaze me how misinformed the anti-gun folks are. Just a couple of points.
- You spoke at length about "weeding out" those who should not have guns, which is sensible, but then you say "having armed civilian you are slowing down the response time that the police and giving a shooter more time to k**l or to escape". Think about things from the innocent target's point of view. Law enforcement response time is what it is. In that interim the active shooter is unimpeded. If a "good guy (or gal) with a gun" intervenes, the shooter will be forced to shift focus. So how many lives are saved from that time until the cops arrive? And if the shooter doesn't shift focus they do so at their own peril.
- Arguing about the meaning of the 2nd amendment with gun grabbers is a total waste of time, so I'm not going there.
- The biggest misinformation here is your "why you need military style weapons" rant. First off, you show you know nothing about the military (or firearms in general) and I can only imagine all the grimaces in the OPP veteran community when you say something as foolish as that. Style doesn't k**l anyone. "Fully semi-automatic" isn't a thing! The government very strictly regulates "military grade weapons", and that scary-looking, black, semi-automatic, rifle does not fit into that category - so get over it.
- I think those of us who own firearms would be willing to work with you for honest to God intelligent ways of keeping guns out of the hands of people without the mental capacity to properly handle them - but we'll never get to that point if you continue to spout such i***tic drivel. Got it? Good!

bobebgtime Loc: Virginia

Fit2BTied wrote:

It never ceases to amaze me how misinformed the an... (show quote)

Excellent post. It great to hear from someone who actually approaches this subject with knowledge and reasoning. Thank you.