• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

dandy_warhol said:
Why do people need to have easy access to guns? The primary purpose of a gun is to kill. Why shouldn't there be some restrictions on people's ability to kill?

If it is just about hunting or target shooting, I call bullshit.
Click to expand...
There is a significant percentage of gun owners in the U.S. that have their guns just for hunting animals, and a percentage of those folks also use them for target shooting to improve their animal hunting skills. Are you insinuating that every single one of those folks really just owns guns so they can kill people?
 
michaelskis said:
And this is why we have an issue. Instead of building upon a foundation of agreement, to go right back to making it harder to own guns for everyone. I agree 100% that we need to do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of people who want to use them for evil purposes and I think that people would get so much further if they started from that position, as opposed to lumping all gun owners into the same boat.

The reality is gun ownership is a constitutional right, much like voting. I personally believe we should make it easier to vote, not harder. I am not saying that we should make gun ownership easier, but the idea of making it harder for everyone is not going to bring people together. As for the car analogy, car, horse, carriage, or similar modes of transportation are not constitutional rights. More so when someone kills someone else in a drunk driving accident, we don't blame the car or the alcohol. We blame the person.
Click to expand...

The view of gun rights is akin to using the first amendment to yell fire in a crowded theatre. There is zero reason a civilian needs an AR-15.
 
Bubba said:
There is a significant percentage of gun owners in the U.S. that have their guns just for hunting animals, and a percentage of those folks also use them for target shooting to improve their animal hunting skills. Are you insinuating that every single one of those folks really just owns guns so they can kill people?
Click to expand...
No, but the point of hunting is to kill animals. It is still killing. People hunt. That is fine. Some people use guns to hunt. Understandable. People don't need to hunt with high powered assault rifles. And there still be some type of restrictions on access to guns.
 
dandy_warhol said:
No, but the point of hunting is to kill animals. It is still killing. People hunt. That is fine. Some people use guns to hunt. Understandable. People don't need to hunt with high powered assault rifles. And there still be some type of restrictions on access to guns.
Click to expand...
Ah, thank you for the clarification.

hat-tip.gif
 
michaelskis said:
And this is why we have an issue. Instead of building upon a foundation of agreement, to go right back to making it harder to own guns for everyone. I agree 100% that we need to do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of people who want to use them for evil purposes and I think that people would get so much further if they started from that position, as opposed to lumping all gun owners into the same boat.

The reality is gun ownership is a constitutional right, much like voting. I personally believe we should make it easier to vote, not harder. I am not saying that we should make gun ownership easier, but the idea of making it harder for everyone is not going to bring people together. As for the car analogy, car, horse, carriage, or similar modes of transportation are not constitutional rights. More so when someone kills someone else in a drunk driving accident, we don't blame the car or the alcohol. We blame the person.
Click to expand...
Correct. There is no foundation of agreement, that is my point. Those who want complete and unfettered access to guns and claim the 2nd amendment as gospel, also continue to say "thoughts, and prayers". I think my point is that the fetishization of guns is only found in America and that is the problem. The idea that we really need guns to protect ourselves from some unknown figure who will come get us is the problem.

The reality is that all constitutional rights should be up for update at some point in time. Our constitution was written 200+ years ago by people who had no idea what technology exists in the world today. I would strongly agree with your concept of the 2nd Amendment, if we were only talking about guns that were available in 1791. Anything that has technology created after that has to be permitted, or banned, or otherwise. It is the pick and choose mentality of those who think the 2nd Amendment is more important than anything else that gets me. Automatic weapons can be banned. Semi-Automatic weapons though - THEY ARE STEALING OUR GUNS!

My point was that the discussion is starting at the wrong place. We need to look at why so many people fetishize guns and think the 2nd Amendment is even important in the world we live in today. It shouldn't be this hard to get a Constitutional Amendment to update the 2nd Amendment to actually cover the world we live in today. We can't even have that conversation though because we no longer want actual solutions, we want to fear monger and scream THEY ARE TAKING OUR GUNS!

Again the car analogy is really silly and doesn't work when looking at guns. You are permitted to drive a car. You lose your license to drive a car if you are caught doing anything. You carry insurance, etc., etc, etc. All things that the gun lobby would not support.

People kill people, we can all agree. Finding ways to reduce their ability to do that in mass is likely a better foundation to start on. What weapon has been used in the majority of mass killings in the US? Cars?
 
Hawkeye66 said:
The view of gun rights is akin to using the first amendment to yell fire in a crowded theatre. There is zero reason a civilian needs an AR-15.
Click to expand...

What is it about the AR-15 that leads you say that?

Hink said:
Correct. There is no foundation of agreement, that is my point. Those who want complete and unfettered access to guns and claim the 2nd amendment as gospel, also continue to say "thoughts, and prayers". I think my point is that the fetishization of guns is only found in America and that is the problem. The idea that we really need guns to protect ourselves from some unknown figure who will come get us is the problem.

The reality is that all constitutional rights should be up for update at some point in time. Our constitution was written 200+ years ago by people who had no idea what technology exists in the world today. I would strongly agree with your concept of the 2nd Amendment, if we were only talking about guns that were available in 1791. Anything that has technology created after that has to be permitted, or banned, or otherwise. It is the pick and choose mentality of those who think the 2nd Amendment is more important than anything else that gets me. Automatic weapons can be banned. Semi-Automatic weapons though - THEY ARE STEALING OUR GUNS!

My point was that the discussion is starting at the wrong place. We need to look at why so many people fetishize guns and think the 2nd Amendment is even important in the world we live in today. It shouldn't be this hard to get a Constitutional Amendment to update the 2nd Amendment to actually cover the world we live in today. We can't even have that conversation though because we no longer want actual solutions, we want to fear monger and scream THEY ARE TAKING OUR GUNS!

Again the car analogy is really silly and doesn't work when looking at guns. You are permitted to drive a car. You lose your license to drive a car if you are caught doing anything. You carry insurance, etc., etc, etc. All things that the gun lobby would not support.

People kill people, we can all agree. Finding ways to reduce their ability to do that in mass is likely a better foundation to start on. What weapon has been used in the majority of mass killings in the US? Cars?
Click to expand...

I am not in disagreement that we need to do a better job keeping guns out of the hands of those who want to use them for evil purposes. In terms of the the 2nd amendment, if the left didn't push so hard for an all or nothing then I think that they would be far more successful in getting real change adopted. I think that when people talk about background checks, for any real law abiding citizen who has purchased guns, then they would realize that the back ground checks are not a big deal as long as politics are not involved. There have been several Sheriff's department that have been sued or told by the federal government to stop 'holding' purchase requests or conceal carry permits for political reasons. It happened to me years ago when I got mine CPL. The sheriff at that time implemented his political agenda into the process. But the federal background check that the gun shops use, is very binary. It is a yes or a no, and there are several things that could put up red flags. That system needs to be improved upon and bring in mental health as a red flag among other things.

The car thing was in response to another comment when it was suggested that buying a gun should be as hard as buying a car. We have seen all sorts of things be used to kill people.

So once again, I am going to ask, what is the definition of assault rifle?
 
Last edited:
michaelskis said:
So once again, I am going to ask, what is the definition of assault rifle?
Click to expand...
Anything that doesn't look like this:

www.ranker.com

What Firearms Looked Like In 1791

In conversations surrounding gun control in the US, the Second Amendment to the Constitution is often brought up as proof that the Founding Fathers wanted US citizens to have the right to bear arms, but what kind of weapons were they talking about when they wrote it?In 1791, when the Bill of...
www.ranker.com www.ranker.com

You know how the founder's intended it.
 
Hink said:
Anything that doesn't look like this:

www.ranker.com

What Firearms Looked Like In 1791

In conversations surrounding gun control in the US, the Second Amendment to the Constitution is often brought up as proof that the Founding Fathers wanted US citizens to have the right to bear arms, but what kind of weapons were they talking about when they wrote it?In 1791, when the Bill of...
www.ranker.com www.ranker.com

You know how the founder's intended it.
Click to expand...

That is a load of crap and you know it. Do you want to have a meaningful conversation or not.
 
Hawkeye66 said:
Its a semi automatic rifle. A bolt action rifle is sufficient for hunting. An Ar-15 is easily converted to fully automatic.
Click to expand...

So, in your book, this is an assault rifle?
1653575776869.png

Access to this page has been denied.

www.academy.com
*awesome gun for duck hunting BTW.

My point is the media has fed something into society about one type or another of gun. As for converting an AR-15 into fully automatic, you don't know how hard that really is. If it was as easy as you claim, they would be all over the place.
 
michaelskis said:
So, in your book, this is an assault rifle?
View attachment 57309

Access to this page has been denied.

www.academy.com


My point is the media has fed something into society about one type or another of gun. As for converting an AR-15 into fully automatic, you don't know how hard that really is. If it was as easy as you claim, they would be all over the place.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I would. WTF does someone need a weapon like that for? By the "logic" you are using we should be able to own Howitzers or Gatling guns. I mean, why not?
 
michaelskis said:
I was thinking more about it and I have a question. For those who are pushing for gun control, are you trying to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, or out of the hands of everyone?

I think that that distinction is important and might be the common ground used to move forward on regulations that actually make us safer. If we really want to make a difference, let’s start with the areas of agreement and build upon that vs name calling and political ideology.
Click to expand...
Those that should not have them.

While the mass shootings get the headlines many communities across the country struggle with gun violence every day and the tally of people dead due to this far exceeds the numbers killed in mass shootings. Each situation has their own set of issues but are both important in their own ways and enacting hurdles to slow down firearms purchases or transfers would help in both of these circumstances. Accountability is also a critical issue for me. I live in a state with very restrictive gun laws, yet our major cities don't seem to have any shortage of gun related violence. Mostly the gun trace data comes back to the weapon originating in GA, SC, NC, VA and making its way north. SOMEBODY purchased the gun legally at some point, but what happened to get it here in the hands of a gang member or drug kingpin? Was it stolen or lost or did a straw buyer purchase it and then drop it in the hands of the dark side? This hurts everyone, even if you are pro 2A.
 
kjel said:
Those that should not have them.

While the mass shootings get the headlines many communities across the country struggle with gun violence every day and the tally of people dead due to this far exceeds the numbers killed in mass shootings. Each situation has their own set of issues but are both important in their own ways and enacting hurdles to slow down firearms purchases or transfers would help in both of these circumstances. Accountability is also a critical issue for me. I live in a state with very restrictive gun laws, yet our major cities don't seem to have any shortage of gun related violence. Mostly the gun trace data comes back to the weapon originating in GA, SC, NC, VA and making its way north. SOMEBODY purchased the gun legally at some point, but what happened to get it here in the hands of a gang member or drug kingpin? Was it stolen or lost or did a straw buyer purchase it and then drop it in the hands of the dark side? This hurts everyone, even if you are pro 2A.
Click to expand...

Many have made the calculation that they are OK with killings as long as they can have unfettered access to guns. I don't know why they just don't admit it.
 
kjel said:
Those that should not have them.

While the mass shootings get the headlines many communities across the country struggle with gun violence every day and the tally of people dead due to this far exceeds the numbers killed in mass shootings. Each situation has their own set of issues but are both important in their own ways and enacting hurdles to slow down firearms purchases or transfers would help in both of these circumstances. Accountability is also a critical issue for me. I live in a state with very restrictive gun laws, yet our major cities don't seem to have any shortage of gun related violence. Mostly the gun trace data comes back to the weapon originating in GA, SC, NC, VA and making its way north. SOMEBODY purchased the gun legally at some point, but what happened to get it here in the hands of a gang member or drug kingpin? Was it stolen or lost or did a straw buyer purchase it and then drop it in the hands of the dark side? This hurts everyone, even if you are pro 2A.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what's happening in Chicagoland.

One can literally walk from Indiana into the City of Chicago. There is a known trade of legally purchased guns from other States being illegally brought into NE IL and this is a major factor in the rise of gun violence in Chicago.
 
michaelskis said:
That is a load of crap and you know it. Do you want to have a meaningful conversation or not.
Click to expand...
Why is that a load of crap? Originalist thinking and using the framers as a reason to not change the Constitution can't just be inconsistent.

You think the idea of the 2nd Amendment was to protect people with automatic weapons? If not, why are those allowed to be banned? What about nuclear weapons? Why do we allow those to be banned? That is literally the only way I can protect myself against the government if they were actually doing what many gun hoarders think they will do.

1. The government is so much different than it was in 1791 that the 2nd Amendment's purpose is no longer generally valid. If the government wants to make you go away, a small little drone flies over your house and you are gone. It isn't about protecting yourself from the government. Our world is different now.

2. If the purpose is to protect you from a home invader, than the argument that there are less guns is more valid that putting more guns out there for use.

3. If the purpose is for hunting, than strict regulations, permitting, and restrictions on how many and of what kind can be owned, shouldn't be a problem.

We are just unwilling to get to the point in conversation where we stop screaming THEY WILL TAKE OUR GUNS, and realize that we don't need those guns in the first place. "Them" taking them isn't happening, and those who use firearms appropriately will do all the required things to get them legally. Illegal guns will be easier to track and fines / imprisonment can occur if regulations are broken. I would love to have a meaningful conversation, but it is difficult when we are not able to be consistent in our arguments.
 
Hink said:
Why is that a load of crap? Originalist thinking and using the framers as a reason to not change the Constitution can't just be inconsistent.

You think the idea of the 2nd Amendment was to protect people with automatic weapons? If not, why are those allowed to be banned? What about nuclear weapons? Why do we allow those to be banned? That is literally the only way I can protect myself against the government if they were actually doing what many gun hoarders think they will do.

1. The government is so much different than it was in 1791 that the 2nd Amendment's purpose is no longer generally valid. If the government wants to make you go away, a small little drone flies over your house and you are gone. It isn't about protecting yourself from the government. Our world is different now.

2. If the purpose is to protect you from a home invader, than the argument that there are less guns is more valid that putting more guns out there for use.

3. If the purpose is for hunting, than strict regulations, permitting, and restrictions on how many and of what kind can be owned, shouldn't be a problem.

We are just unwilling to get to the point in conversation where we stop screaming THEY WILL TAKE OUR GUNS, and realize that we don't need those guns in the first place. "Them" taking them isn't happening, and those who use firearms appropriately will do all the required things to get them legally. Illegal guns will be easier to track and fines / imprisonment can occur if regulations are broken. I would love to have a meaningful conversation, but it is difficult when we are not able to be consistent in our arguments.
Click to expand...


bureaucrat#3 said:
I'm at the point, I think we should go constitutional-originalist and ban the sale of anything except black powder weapons. Anyone who wants one needs to sign a contract to be called into the state or national guard (militia) at any time.
Click to expand...

It is a load of crap because the weapons used by British Military were the same as those used by those same farmers. I don't disagree with your assessment regarding limitations though. There are a lot of Military weapons are profoundly more advanced than even the AR-15 platform that should not be in the hands of civilians.

The point that I am trying to make is there is no rational explanation of where that line should be moved to.

More so, why are you all so freaking afraid to bring mental health into the discussion? Or is it because you think that all these shooters were in their right mind and that there was nothing wrong with them mentality and that they didn't need or deserve help? Or do you believe that the gun made them do it?
 
The problem I'm seeing is the defense of guns.

First, at what point do the American people get tired of the shootings and just ban guns outright. Actually remove the 2nd amendment or make it so restrictive that gun owners will not be happy. Gun owners should be pushing for reasonable laws more than the victims.

Second, we can argue automatic, semi auto, and all that crap, but what is the point of an AR-15. Target practice? Bullshit. You can do target practice with a pistol or basic rifle. It's like the meme says, it's so you can play military. Stop playing and actually serve. Once you use those things for what they're meant for you might think twice about using them again.

Third, I understand convenience in tools which is what semi-auto guns should be over a bolt action rifle or large capacity magazines in general. The problem, if you can't hit the deer in one shot you're not getting another. If you can't defend yourself with a 5 round clip you shouldn't be carrying.

The biggest problem is that we keep reelecting politicians because people believe they will "protect" gun rights. They don't care about gun rights. They just know rejecting every gun control bill will get them reelected by the idiots that follow them. Our elected leaders can't even pass decent background checks which damn near everyone would agree to today, but we wouldn't want to inconvenience a gun owner in buying their 120th firearm. FYI, that would be how many guns we have per person in this county.

We can argue here all day long, but I think we all know the answer is to kick out the politicians that aren't fixing the problem. If I was ever a one issue voter, this would be it. Granted my one issue right now is stop trying to take away my right to vote.
 
michaelskis said:
It is a load of crap because the weapons used by British Military were the same as those used by those same farmers. I don't disagree with your assessment regarding limitations though. There are a lot of Military weapons are profoundly more advanced than even the AR-15 platform that should not be in the hands of civilians.

The point that I am trying to make is there is no rational explanation of where that line should be moved to.

More so, why are you all so freaking afraid to bring mental health into the discussion? Or is it because you think that all these shooters were in their right mind and that there was nothing wrong with them mentality and that they didn't need or deserve help? Or do you believe that the gun made them do it?
Click to expand...

Sure, mental health should be addressed. Again, that would involve raising taxes. Is that on the table?
 
michaelskis said:
It is a load of crap because the weapons used by British Military were the same as those used by those same farmers. I don't disagree with your assessment regarding limitations though. There are a lot of Military weapons are profoundly more advanced than even the AR-15 platform that should not be in the hands of civilians.

The point that I am trying to make is there is no rational explanation of where that line should be moved to.

More so, why are you all so freaking afraid to bring mental health into the discussion? Or is it because you think that all these shooters were in their right mind and that there was nothing wrong with them mentality and that they didn't need or deserve help? Or do you believe that the gun made them do it?
Click to expand...
The rational explanation is that the line should be where the framer's intended it, which is guns from 1791.

No one is afraid to bring up mental health. Universal healthcare would fix some of that. More pay for doctors and nurses who do mental health work would help. Lots of "progressive" ideas that get thrown away as trash often.

Mental health isn't being ignored because it isn't a problem (it most certainly is a HUGE problem), it is being ignored because in this case it is a scapegoat for those who don't want to have a meaningful conversation about the problem of guns in this country.
 
michaelskis said:
So once again, I am going to ask, what is the definition of assault rifle?
Click to expand...

That's a good question. The 1994 assault weapon ban defined it as a semi-automatic rifle able to accept detachable magazines which had two or more of the following:
  • Folding or telescoping stock
  • pistol grip
  • bayonet mount
  • flash hider or threaded barrel designed to hold one
  • grenade launcher
During the ban, one would not have been able to purchase the weapon like the one that the Uvalde shooter used but they would have been able to purchased a "hunting" rifle like a Rugar mini-14 that is functionally the same weapon, in the sense that it shot the same ammo, could have had the same capacity, and was semi-automatic, so it could have shot at the same rate. The biggest difference in the two is cosmetic. From what I read in the past, the 1994 ban did not significantly impact crime rates; so it was considered largely ineffective by most accounts.
 
Hawkeye66 said:
Sure, mental health should be addressed. Again, that would involve raising taxes. Is that on the table?
Click to expand...
Absolutely, as well as cutting spending in places like subsidies to oil companies, some of the wasteful military spending, and grain production.

Big Owl said:
That's a good question. The 1994 assault weapon ban defined it as a semi-automatic rifle able to accept detachable magazines which had two or more of the following:
  • Folding or telescoping stock
  • pistol grip
  • bayonet mount
  • flash hider or threaded barrel designed to hold one
  • grenade launcher
During the ban, one would not have been able to purchase the weapon like the one that the Uvalde shooter used but they would have been able to purchased a "hunting" rifle like a Rugar mini-14 that is functionally the same weapon, in the sense that it shot the same ammo, could have had the same capacity, and was semi-automatic, so it could have shot at the same rate. The biggest difference in the two is cosmetic. From what I read in the past, the 1994 ban did not significantly impact crime rates; so it was considered largely ineffective by most accounts.
Click to expand...

And that is my point. The media is feeding a particular narrative saying that it is this or that, but they have no idea what they are talking about. One 'looks' scary, the other looks like it would be used for deer hunting but reality is they are practically the same gun.

Hink said:
The rational explanation is that the line should be where the framer's intended it, which is guns from 1791.

No one is afraid to bring up mental health. Universal healthcare would fix some of that. More pay for doctors and nurses who do mental health work would help. Lots of "progressive" ideas that get thrown away as trash often.

Mental health isn't being ignored because it isn't a problem (it most certainly is a HUGE problem), it is being ignored because in this case it is a scapegoat for those who don't want to have a meaningful conversation about the problem of guns in this country.
Click to expand...
The mental health is being ignored because everyone is too busy blaming the gun and not busy enough blaming the shooter.

As for what the founding fathers intended for the second amendment was not just the guns from 1791. You and I both know it and the liberal press has been trying to unsuccessfully push this agenda for years.
 
michaelskis said:
So, in your book, this is an assault rifle?
View attachment 57309

Access to this page has been denied.

www.academy.com
*awesome gun for duck hunting BTW.

My point is the media has fed something into society about one type or another of gun. As for converting an AR-15 into fully automatic, you don't know how hard that really is. If it was as easy as you claim, they would be all over the place.
Click to expand...
You asked if a shotgun would be considered an assault rifle?
 
michaelskis said:
Absolutely, as well as cutting spending in places like subsidies to oil companies, some of the wasteful military spending, and grain production.



And that is my point. The media is feeding a particular narrative saying that it is this or that, but they have no idea what they are talking about. One 'looks' scary, the other looks like it would be used for deer hunting but reality is they are practically the same gun.


The mental health is being ignored because everyone is too busy blaming the gun and not busy enough blaming the shooter.

As for what the founding fathers intended for the second amendment was not just the guns from 1791. You and I both know it and the liberal press has been trying to unsuccessfully push this agenda for years.
Click to expand...

Do you think the Founders seriously envisioned a world like we have now? Where an 18 year old could get something like an AR-15 on demand and wipe out a room of kids? You think they would be OK with that?

Mental Health is a huge part of the problem COMBINED with ease of access to deadly weapons. They should both be addressed.
 
Hawkeye66 said:
Do you think the Founders seriously envisioned a world like we have now? Where an 18 year old could get something like an AR-15 on demand and wipe out a room of kids? You think they would be OK with that?

Mental Health is a huge part of the problem COMBINED with ease of access to deadly weapons. They should both be addressed.
Click to expand...
MD Planner said:
I always get a kick out of people who act like the founders were this all-knowing body who could envision the future. Yep, the same guys who said all men were created equal; well except for the people they owned at the time. :think:
Click to expand...
Hink said:
And women. They didn't see that coming did they.
Click to expand...
But the Constitution is sacrosanct and unchangeable...except for amendments 11-27.
 
michaelskis said:
The mental health is being ignored because everyone is too busy blaming the gun and not busy enough blaming the shooter.

As for what the founding fathers intended for the second amendment was not just the guns from 1791. You and I both know it and the liberal press has been trying to unsuccessfully push this agenda for years.
Click to expand...
Blaming the shooter is fine. The point though is that we cannot stop an insane individual who wants to do something insane. We cannot do so without limiting the freedom that we enjoy. Creating prisons for our kids so they are safe is certainly an odd way to look at freedom.

Mental health isn't being ignored. It is not at issue with this shooter though. Unless your argument is that everyone that shoots another human is mentally ill and therefore under our laws should not be able to be imprisoned or put to death. That isn't how we look at it though.

Mental health can be reviewed at anytime. Additional gun regulations only are even slightly considered when tragedies happen.
 
I don't really understand the need for semi-auto long guns. I've heard the hunting arguments, but think people who need six rapid shots to kill a duck or multiple rifle rounds to kill a deer are doing it wrong. I always thought of hunting as waiting or stalking for the perfect target and the right shot. Of course we always had either single or double load shotguns or bolt action rifles growing up. I guess there could be that instance where 30-50 feral hogs run through your yard....

My general thought is that if it does enough carnage that DNA kits have to be used to identify the victims, its probably not needed by the general public. No small arms can stand up to the might and technology of the military. When we're at that point, a private militia response is pointless. Its why its really important to make sure that reasonable and ethical people are in charge of the military.
 
Hink said:
Blaming the shooter is fine. The point though is that we cannot stop an insane individual who wants to do something insane. We cannot do so without limiting the freedom that we enjoy. Creating prisons for our kids so they are safe is certainly an odd way to look at freedom.

Mental health isn't being ignored. It is not at issue with this shooter though. Unless your argument is that everyone that shoots another human is mentally ill and therefore under our laws should not be able to be imprisoned or put to death. That isn't how we look at it though.

Mental health can be reviewed at anytime. Additional gun regulations only are even slightly considered when tragedies happen.
Click to expand...
The problem is that mental health is ignored, but its ignored by the same people who point to mental health as the issue. Any time a government tries to put in red flag laws, the NRA and gun lobby and their politicians point out that it will be abused to prevent good people from getting a gun as soon as possible.

One of my co-workers brought up yesterday that the latest tragedy was because the US continues to allow illegal immigrants across the border. She was unaware the shooter was from North Dakota. She then said well I guess his family was from Mexico, because of his last name. I'm like are you aware of Texas history and the people and surnames of Texans who have lived there. I think she thought all "real" Texans were white cowboys.
 
bureaucrat#3 said:
One of my co-workers brought up yesterday that the latest tragedy was because the US continues to allow illegal immigrants across the border. She was unaware the shooter was from North Dakota. She then said well I guess his family was from Mexico, because of his last name. I'm like are you aware of Texas history and the people and surnames of Texans who have lived there. I think she thought all "real" Texans were white cowboys.
Click to expand...
Yeah...since Jesus Domingo's family has lived in Texas since 1732. Long before Henry Welch's family immigrated there from Wales in 1869.
 
My problem with the AR-15 isn't how you classify it. It's the fact that it seems to be the weapon of choice for these shootings. Why is that? It sounds like other semi-auto guns which you describe as basically the same thing isn't really the same thing. I also see no real use for the AR-15. It's not a hunting weapon. It's not a self-defense weapon. There are other weapons you can use for target practice. I know it's selling point and appeal, but what is it's purpose?

Yes, I'm selecting one specific gun. Let's ban that one and get a collective sad cry from gun nuts everywhere and move on. I promise you'll live if the gun is banned unlike some children out there.
 
michaelskis said:
I was thinking more about it and I have a question. For those who are pushing for gun control, are you trying to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, or out of the hands of everyone?
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, there are people I know that claim to be the responsible gun owners that shouldn't get punished, but I objectively don't think they are as responsible as they claim.
 
Mental Health is a concern for the ENTIRE country, not just the faux-threatened psycho white boys, but is such a multi-layered topic that just adding a few more mental health practitioners isn't going to solve the problem. The LGBTQ+ community has some of the highest rates of mental illness, yet they aren't the ones out there shooting up schools, supermarkets, and houses of worship.

Maybe extreme racism or fascism should be added to the DSM-5 so we can properly treat these psychos.
 
While I tried to find elements of compromise, it is apparent that isn't going to happen. I think that is reflective of the problems with society today. Good luck with the all or nothing approach. Let me know how gathering all the AR-15s go for y'all.
 
michaelskis said:
While I tried to find elements of compromise, it is apparent that isn't going to happen. I think that is reflective of the problems with society today. Good luck with the all or nothing approach. Let me know how gathering all the AR-15s go for y'all.
Click to expand...
I know I'm a mod/admin...and this is suspension worthy....and I'll gladly take my punishment for this...but I'm done holding my tongue.

Fuck off.
Moderator note:

NHPlanner suspended for four days.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
michaelskis said:
While I tried to find elements of compromise, it is apparent that isn't going to happen. I think that is reflective of the problems with society today. Good luck with the all or nothing approach. Let me know how gathering all the AR-15s go for y'all.
Click to expand...
So if we're not answering this they way you want us to, what is the answer? Other than a blanket "mental health." Hink and others gave you some pretty straightforward bullet points. What are the mental health bullet points? I don't think anyone discounts the need for better mental health care in the US. That does probably require a stronger health care system and the ability of those without insurance to be able to access it.

At the end of the day, I make no apologies for the fact that I believe that all guns should be harder to get. I've had well over a dozen friends or family members who have died from a gun - mostly domestic violence/murder/suicide, suicide, or accident. I can't think of one friend who has ever used their gun to protect themselves or their family. Guns dont make us safer. I think de-escalation of firearms is the answer.
 
michaelskis said:
While I tried to find elements of compromise, it is apparent that isn't going to happen. I think that is reflective of the problems with society today. Good luck with the all or nothing approach. Let me know how gathering all the AR-15s go for y'all.
Click to expand...

Your approach seems to be unfettered access to weapons with no compromise. There is an all or nothing approach if I have ever seen one.
 
Hawkeye66 said:
Your approach seems to be unfettered access to weapons with no compromise. There is an all or nothing approach if I have ever seen one.
Click to expand...
You didn't read my posts, did you. Try going back and actually reading through the posts instead of just assuming you know what your talking about.
 
bureaucrat#3 said:
So if we're not answering this they way you want us to, what is the answer? Other than a blanket "mental health." Hink and others gave you some pretty straightforward bullet points. What are the mental health bullet points? I don't think anyone discounts the need for better mental health care in the US. That does probably require a stronger health care system and the ability of those without insurance to be able to access it.

At the end of the day, I make no apologies for the fact that I believe that all guns should be harder to get. I've had well over a dozen friends or family members who have died from a gun - mostly domestic violence/murder/suicide, suicide, or accident. I can't think of one friend who has ever used their gun to protect themselves or their family. Guns dont make us safer. I think de-escalation of firearms is the answer.
Click to expand...

You didn't read my other posts regarding this topic did you. Please go back and read through these instead of just assuming you know what your talking about.
 
IMO, and that's all it is, one of the problems with politics today is that the Right always goads the Left into having to be the better person and try to be understanding and find common ground, and the Left is too chickensh!t to say, "F@ck off. You are hypocritical bullies who manipulate ever situation to steal more power and resources from people." [and no, mskis, i don't think you are a bully trying to steal more power and resources, and the f@ck off isn't directed at you.]

There is a time for compromise and there is a time for action. Some situations, like the continuing slaughter of children deserve action, not compromise.
 
michaelskis said:
You didn't read my posts, did you. Try going back and actually reading through the posts instead of just assuming you know what your talking about.
Click to expand...

Actually I did. You did say you would be OK with some background checks. The rest of the time was spent defending firearms.
 
Hawkeye66 said:
Actually I did. You did say you would be OK with some background checks. The rest of the time was spent defending firearms.
Click to expand...
www.cyburbia.org

NEVERENDING ♾️ - The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

How many children must we sacrifice before something changes? In Texas? No amount. Goddamn Abbott won't to a fucking thing. In fact, I predict the GOP will entrench themselves even more and continue to loosen gun laws. Because it's all about the Base and the Fringe. I wonder how many...
www.cyburbia.org www.cyburbia.org
 
mendelman said:
An actual quote from Gov Abbott: "Anybody who shoots somebody else has a mental health challenge, period."
Click to expand...
He also continued to say "the state needed to do a better job with mental health" - yet in April (that would be LAST MONTH) he slashed $211 million from the department the oversees mental health programs in Texas.

LIP SERVICE!!!

Don't tell me this is a mental health issue with this type of action.
 
michaelskis said:
www.cyburbia.org

NEVERENDING ♾️ - The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

How many children must we sacrifice before something changes? In Texas? No amount. Goddamn Abbott won't to a fucking thing. In fact, I predict the GOP will entrench themselves even more and continue to loosen gun laws. Because it's all about the Base and the Fringe. I wonder how many...
www.cyburbia.org www.cyburbia.org
Click to expand...

No one disagrees that mental health isnt part of the issue. The other part is ease of access to firearms. It should be harder to get them. Rights dont come without responsibilities. Some inconvenience is not going to hurt anyone.

Its pitiful that we are talking about teachers being armed. Pitiful. I am not sure I could be more embarrassed to be an American than I am now.
 
Back
Top