Another Shooting, Nashville

[tinkerdorabelle]

.

 

[UncleMike101]

No ganging up is not done with intelligent facts, people at the bottom resort to that, because they are so defeated and have no intelligent responses but to twist and bald face lie. Sad and pathetic. But the good news is people are po'd at the gun killing and aren't going to sit back any longer.

Saying that people exist "at the bottom" and are "pathetic" are pretty good examples of someone who's run out of excuses for their lack of knowledge of the subject under discussion.
It's also tantamount to trying to end the argument by flinging the "F" word at your opponents.
BTW
Again you've made an error in fact.
Guns don't kill.
People kill.
The fact remains that inanimate objects are intrinsically harmless without human intervention.
And as far as people not sitting back any longer I'm curious how those people intend to remove the lawfully owned property of their fellow Citizens in a peaceful manner.
That could cause problems.............

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

You are taking that out of the context of the times. My point still stands. Yes but they believed in people being armed to defend the country against foreign invaders, as soldiers in a well regulated militia as they did not want a standing army or a large gov army and as Jefferson added the navy and we had larger standing armies, still the militias served as armed soldiers to aid them. And Jefferson was very very strong on this, he believed that a standing military could be used against the people and like Madison and our other FF believed that a standing army could not always be used for the people's best interest. Madison if you see what I put on above that he said, would be rolling over in his grave if he saw how much we spend on our military and the wars we go into.

You're exactly right that they didn't want a standing army. They believed that standing armies could be corrupted by the government that controls them. Giving the people the right to bear arms was firstly an attempt to not have a need for the creation of an army, but also a way for the people to protect themselves and their own property (as shown in Paine's quote), and as a safeguard against the government, should they create an army that the people needed to fight against (in Hamilton's quote). The founding fathers definitely had a fear that our govt could someday use a military force against us and wanted us to have the right to defend ourselves against that potential threat.

I'm not arguing here whether or not I think the govt is going to get us. That has nothing to do with this argument, but that is one of the reasons the founding fathers wanted citizens to have the right to own guns.

 

[Geoff_M]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course, but that happens every time there is a thread about gun violence. The numerous posts back and forth and detailed gun explanations distract from original reason why the post was made: another horrible mass murder using an AR-15 firearm. I stopped engaging a couple pages back hoping that the thread may return to the tragedy in TN.

Robin, I have an honest question that I've posed on-line more than once on different forums and I have yet to find someone that has been able to effectively answer my query. Perhaps you or someone else here can finally give me a detailed response. Here it is: Can you please tell me in what ways (technical specifications, performance metrics, features, etc.) a standard Ruger Mini-14 "Ranch" rifle would be an inferior selection as a weapon for someone intent on causing mass casualties instead of an "AR-15" type rifle? The Ruger does not meet the standard definition of an "assault rifle", and I have not seen it targeted for any "banning". Even in the bill introduced into Congress in the wake of the Parkland shooting that specifically names over 200 makes and models of firearms for banishment actually exempts the standard Mini-14 by name. And the Ruger isn't a "one off" type of firearm either. The same question could be asked of plenty of other makes and models of firearms when compared to an "AR-15". So what would make the "AR-15" a superior "killing machine" when compared to a Mini-14? Honest question.

The problem to many of us is that, while I think we all want to "do something" to try and prevent mass shootings, we'd like to have a reasonable demonstration that any proposed measure would actually work towards that common goal. But when many of us hear things like the fixation on "AR-15s" or so-called "assault weapons", the likelihood of banning such things making an actual difference would be about the same as suggesting that banning the private ownership of Toyota Camry and Honda Civics would make a dent in the number of drunk driving deaths if the data showed that majority of such deaths involve those two makes of cars.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

.

 

[longboard55]

I think the answer is not AR15s, its semi automatics and removable magazines. Neither have a legitimate purpose for responsible firearm use. If you need 10 to shoot a deer, you need to find a new hobby

 

[UncleMike101]

Robin, I have an honest question that I've posed on-line more than once on different forums and I have yet to find someone that has been able to effectively answer my query. Perhaps you or someone else here can finally give me a detailed response. Here it is: Can you please tell me in what ways (technical specifications, performance metrics, features, etc.) a standard Ruger Mini-14 "Ranch" rifle would be an inferior selection as a weapon for someone intent on causing mass casualties instead of an "AR-15" type rifle? The Ruger does not meet the standard definition of an "assault rifle", and I have not seen it targeted for any "banning". Even in the bill introduced into Congress in the wake of the Parkland shooting that specifically names over 200 makes and models of firearms for banishment actually exempts the standard Mini-14 by name. And the Ruger isn't a "one off" type of firearm either. The same question could be asked of plenty of other makes and models of firearms when compared to an "AR-15". So what would make the "AR-15" a superior "killing machine" when compared to a Mini-14? Honest question.

The problem to many of us is that, while I think we all want to "do something" to try and prevent mass shootings, we'd like to have a reasonable demonstration that any proposed measure would actually work towards that common goal. But when many of us hear things like the fixation on "AR-15s" or so-called "assault weapons", the likelihood of banning such things making an actual difference would be about the same as suggesting that banning the private ownership of Toyota Camry and Honda Civics would make a dent in the number of drunk driving deaths if the data showed that majority of such deaths involve one of those two makes of cars.

I'm not trying to step on Robinb's potential response but;
The Mini 14 is a scaled down version of the famous M1 Garand which George Patton described as ""The greatest battle implement ever devised".
The M1 was used to dramatic effect during the Second World War and the Korean War and accounted for potentially hundreds of thousands of dead enemies in those conflicts.
The Mini 14 could well be used to commit mayhem even though it doesn't appear to be as "scary" as the AR type weapons.
Also the Mini was excluded from the ill advised "Assault Weapons" ban enacted by the Clinton administration because of it's cosmetic differences while totally ignoring the fact that it functions in exactly the same manner as an AR.
Once again proving that people are willing to ban, or allow, an object based entirely on it's looks as opposed to it's functionality.

 

[UncleMike101]

Actually I said that when I am responding to the low level twisting posts and gang behavior that you all fell down to with not only twisting my words but actual lies. As far as how they intend to do this is use their vote, protest, etc., doing exactly what they are doing now and push laws. And YOUR error is people with guns kill people, they kill them more efficiently, and quickly and they kill more of them, and people with AR 15 type weapons and modified weapons kill even more people effectively and we are going to stop that with our vote, with informing people, and with laws.

I'm afraid votes will not do your bidding and the laws as set forth by The Constitution are well enough established that attempting to removing those objects that you are afraid of will not be greeted with enthusiasm by the Americans who own those objects.

 

[longboard55]

I remember when you could smoke in an airplane. Just sayin, when opinions change?

 

[Geoff_M]

Also the Mini was excluded from the ill advised "Assault Weapons" ban enacted by the Clinton administration because of it's cosmetic differences while totally ignoring the fact that it functions in exactly the same manner as an AR.
Once again proving that people are willing to ban, or allow, an object based entirely on it's looks as opposed to it's functionality.

Yep, and the M-1 is also exempted by name from the same post-Parkland Congressional Bill.

 

[Hikergirl]

I'm not trying to step on Robinb's potential response but;
The Mini 14 is a scaled down version of the famous M1 Garand which George Patton described as ""The greatest battle implement ever devised".
The M1 was used to dramatic effect during the Second World War and the Korean War and accounted for potentially hundreds of thousands of dead enemies in those conflicts.
The Mini 14 could well be used to commit mayhem even though it doesn't appear to be as "scary" as the AR type weapons.
Also the Mini was excluded from the ill advised "Assault Weapons" ban enacted by the Clinton administration because of it's cosmetic differences while totally ignoring the fact that it functions in exactly the same manner as an AR.
Once again proving that people are willing to ban, or allow, an object based entirely on it's looks as opposed to it's functionality.

The AR-15 is banned in NY, but there are compliant versions you can purchase. So really the ban did nothing except put more gun options to purchase out there. Something tells me that isn't what people want when they want something banned

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

Actually I said that when I am responding to the low level twisting posts and gang behavior that you all fell down to with not only twisting my words but actual lies. OR telling me what I can and cannot post, I had one person tell me I can't post about LaPierre as an example. As far as how they intend to do thism is use their vote, protest, etc., doing exactly what they are doing now and push laws. And YOUR error is people with guns kill people, they kill them more efficiently, and quickly and they kill more of them, and people with AR 15 type weapons and modified weapons kill even more people effectively and we are going to stop that with our vote, with informing people, and with laws.

Yes, people with guns kill people. People without guns kill people. Guns without people controlling them do NOT kill people.

Some people feel the way to stop killing is to get rid of guns. Others of us feel that the people are the problem, and if we can figure out what kind of people are most prone to killing and get them the help they need, it will be more effective than taking away guns from law-abiding citizens who have no wish to do harm.

In regards to your comment that people with AR15 type weapons kill more people effectively, what are you comparing this to? I'm honestly confused at what you are trying to say. Are you saying they kill more people effectively than other guns or than knives or what?

 

[UncleMike101]

I remember when you could smoke in an airplane. Just sayin, when opinions change?

It's not a matter of opinion.
It's a matter of Rights.
Opinion are subject to change whenever the wind changes direction.
Peoples Rights under the Constitution are inalienable and cannot be removed due to changes in opinions.
Fortunately the Founding Fathers has the good sense to make it a very long drawn out procedure to change the Constitution thus insuring that it couldn't be changed or altered when the wind changes.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...land-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

 

[robinb]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...land-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

I posted that earlier. No one seemed to be interested.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Well first off, I never said that AR 15s are the only issue or even give my personal opinion in the beginning of how I felt about them, that was twisted and pulled out of context by the gun GANG OF 8 on here, there is about 8 gun people that are messaging me, replying to me, ganging up, twisting what I am saying, etc., my main point was that the talking points right now are about stricter gun control, more background checks, many things and maybe getting rid of some of the AR 15 type weapons, I didn't even say my views on the AR 15 at first, was kind of pushed into that topic. I was speaking of the fact that LaPierre and Fox News, and Beck and all the others that people listen to on a regular basis and some politicians even, make it seem like any regulations on guns at all means they are taking all your guns away. That was my point. It got twisted into this by people taking parts of what I said out of context. Then I finally went along with what they were saying and tried to give my personal views about it. The fact is that any gun people I know and even you all on here, don't want regulations do you. If you do lets talk about what you do want and what can be done, but really what I have seen on here is the same baloney, no regulations, all guns are ok, and I put on on here that even the very FF intended guns to be for the militia for the men who were well trained soldiers, a well regulated militia who were trained to defend our country against foreign invaders, etc. bc there was not a large standing military like there is now. That is a fact. Stop saying i'm not putting on facts bc I am, just bc you don't like them doesn't make them not facts. All I see is what you don't want as far as guns and LaPierre and Fox News and the like are tied with the gun people and push that agenda and message, that any regulations means they will come and take all your guns away and actually I put on here that LaPierre stated even farther, they the g want to take all your rights away, obvious fear mongering propaganda, bc it certainly makes them a lot of money. It's all about the money. I live in NY state, they did not take away the AR 15s totally, you have to limit the rounds in them or something, I'm about having the talk, the discussion, from people on all sides not just these crazy propaganda things. What I am saying is not propaganda, it is fact.
FACT: So again - James Madison: In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

Madison also noted that never-ending war tends to destroy both liberty and prosperity:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

And yet again, you have responded not to my statement, but instead gone on an irrelevant tangent.

Fact, the founding fathers made many statements about the bill of rights.

Fact, different people interpret those statements in different ways.

Fact, NOBODY in this thread besides you has any interest in debating these interpretations.

Fact, there is no more dishonest a statement than, “We’re not coming for your guns” when it is immediately followed by a list of guns that “should” be banned.

Fact, if anyone believes “gun model X” is “too dangerous” to be in civilian hands, it’s perfectly logical that they would feel exactly the same about any other gun capable of doing the same things as “gun model X”. Claiming otherwise is dishonest.

 

[Domo]

Why the compulsion to own a big gun? I'd rather own cake.

 

[luvsJack]

I posted that earlier. No one seemed to be interested.

Uhmmm that is not entirely true. It was pointed out to you that the radiologist was not comparing rifle wounds to rifle wounds but instead to hand gun wounds.

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

Why the compulsion to own a big gun? I'd rather own cake.

I know you're not serious, but as someone who doesn't like cake, it would serve no purpose to me.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

And yet again, you have responded not to my statement, but instead gone on an irrelevant tangent.

Fact, the founding fathers made many statements about the bill of rights.

Fact, different people interpret those statements in different ways.

Fact, NOBODY in this thread besides you has any interest in debating these interpretations.

Fact, there is no more dishonest a statement than, “We’re not coming for your guns” when it is immediately followed by a list of guns that “should” be banned.

Fact, if anyone believes “gun model X” is “too dangerous” to be in civilian hands, it’s perfectly logical that they would feel exactly the same about any other gun capable of doing the same things as “gun model X”. Claiming otherwise is dishonest.

I agree that the gun crew on here is "not interested in these interpretations". Which are not interpretations but statements from the FFs. But I could care less, they read them and now are educated on it, whether you like it or not or are 'interested' in it is irrelevant. You don't want to know the truth because the truth blows apart your own views but it is fact. Yes I agree they may want to ban semi automatic types or the ones with large magazines, etc. but no one is seriously talking about banning all guns which is what you are told when any gun regulations come up. They also want to stop the gun show loophole, and some other stronger gun regulations etc.