Is it time to talk about guns?

I did hear he bought said firearm on his 18th birthday, though. Maybe if he wasn't allowed to do that those kids would be playing in their backyards right now.

 

Very different. I used the wrong photo. One is an M16, the other an ak47.

Ar/m16...

 

He did use an AR-15, right? And the kids were practically decapitated, right? So he could and did accomplish the result with an AR-15, right? So your argument is basically that he didn't need to pull the trigger so often (but he did) and could have had worse aim (but he didn't). Of course, he could have stayed home, but he didn't. So we're into one of those college dorm bull session philosophical discussions: Does the tree crash in th e forest if there's no one around to hear it? Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Legally speaking, the AR-15 was a sine qua non (but for) of the killings, and would meet the legal definition of proximate cause:The result was forseeable and there were no intervening causes between the act and the resulting harm. The killer might possibly have accomplished the same result with another kind of weapon, but did not. As the saying goes, it takes two to tango. The killer, without the AR-15 or similar semi-automatic assault style weapon, could not have accomplished the same result. Sellers and manufacturers of AR-15s should be aware that, while such weapons in the hands of normal, responsible people, pose no problem, in the hands of abnormal, irresponsible people can pose a big problem, and our society is sufficiently full of the latter to create a strong likelihood that such killings will occur.

https://www.liveabout.com/thmb/1cmV.../grenade-attacks-58b8f8095f9b58af5cb9628e.jpg

 

The same thing could be said about a motor vehicle and that's probably why despite you insisting you're right, the laws reflect my opinion.
And before you go on about intended use, it's the actual use that matters.

 

Cars don't kill people. people kill people. Therefore, we should eliminate drivers tests and licenses for operating automobiles.
Nukes don't kill people, people kill people. Therefore, everyone should have a right to a nuclear arsenal.
Imagine if Kim Jong Un, disputing international arms control bans, argued: “Nukes don’t kill people ― people kill people!” Dennis Henigan’s book, “Guns Don’t Kill People, People Kill People” and Other Myths About Guns and Gun Control. Over the past half century, “the number of motor-vehicle fatalities per mile driven has dropped more than 80 percent.” In 2015, for the first time during this period, Americans died from firearms at the cars at the same rate s from cars.

A few hours before the Sandy Hook school shooting, a school stabbing occurred in China. But none of the 22 children stabbed died, According to oociologist Ding Xueliang :“The huge difference between this case and the U.S. is not the suspect, nor the situation, but the simple fact he did not have an effective weapon.”
It’s Time To Retire The 'Guns Don’t Kill People -- People Kill People' Argument. Guns DO Kill People.
Debunking the “Guns Don’t Kill People, People Kill People” Myth

 

The United States is not North Korea or China. All of your arguments are unconstitutional on top of only penalizing law abiding citizens. Because I'm certain you'll never try and approach the problem from a direction that'll actually help, I'm going to constantly remind you how things have and still work here in the U. S. of America.

 

It's pretty obvious how "things "work in the USA--children continue to be slaughtered in schools and on the streets, the cities are seeing more shootings and death than ever and republicans / right wingers could not care less. No guns? No shooting deaths. Guns--and here we are. Why are the guns previously pictured necessary in an ordered / civilized society? Hunting? NO. To defeat a dangerous US government that has drones, tanks, rockets, millions of service members, ect,ect,ect? NO. What a joke. Anyone that tries to take over this democracy by force--( what remains of it)--foreign or domestic- needs incarcerated or worst case scenario--shot down in the streets. It's time to quit fucking with these traitors.

 

Those were the days my friend ! "In olden days the sight of stocking was thought of as something shocking..." Did they have AR-15s? There were no NRA, gun lobbies or Retrumplican politicians messing with their minds.



Which is easier? To invent a time machine? To bring back hula hoops, poodle skirts, Perry Como, and the Ol' Time Religion. Or to adapt the law to the times?






The Genie is out of the bottle, armed and dangerous. Can't put him back, but we might be able to regulate him a little!

 

The NRA was founded in 1871

 

Naw, nothin' unconstitutional about regulatin' semi-automatics. It was done in 1994. The Second Amendment says nothing about them. And Justice Scalia said the Second Amendment doesn't prevent reasonable regulation of firearms.(D.C. v. Heller) But we've said that many times. You keep recycling your arguments--if we can call them that. As for the U.S. not being North Korea or China, that's known as a non sequitor, illustrating your inability or unwillingness to think logically, or your hope that your audience has that incapacity.

If the gentle reader steps back for a minute and flips thru the past few pages of your posts, it's apparent that all you're doing is parroting NRA talking points and can't formulate a rational argument of your own.

 

Yes, it was, as a sportsmen's association concerned with promoting marksmanship and gun safety. It backed the National Firearms Act of 1934 creating a national registry for machine guns and sawed-off shotguns and taxing them heavily. And that's what it remained until 1977, when it took a sharp right turn into Second Amendment absolutism. Those rifle toting youths depicted in the photo looked more fifties than late seventies, so I stand by my statement. The NRA may have lobbied Congress but was not the pathological mega-monster lobby it's become. The NRA's journey from marksmanship to political brinkmanship

 

Good guess

 

I constantly hear it said, "it's not in the second ammendment". The 2nd amendment doesn't grant citizens anything. It only stops the government from infringing.
And as long as the laws are on my side , I'm not the one who's arguing.

 

There was some interesting information in the last article.
Still, none of it is legal and isn't part of the ar15 discussion. It also shows that they are different firearms and significant machining is needed to mix and match the proper parts. All the drop in options are risking destroying your firearm, so not really practical even though possible. That coat hanger piece is ingenious, but still as illegal as it gets.