Mass Shooting 13 Dead Thousand Oaks California

But you are the one who made it into a debate about gun rights when you repeatedly stated that the Second Amendment must be repealed, and that all guns should be confiscated. And you did this on the very first page of this thread. Funny, huh?

 

I'm not making an argument here. I'm stating a fact. If your point is that a pump shotgun doesn't make a good weapon for a mass shooting, then you are sorely mistaken. And as luck would have it, you've even posted a video to prove my fact.

Also, stating that shotguns are used for hunting makes no sense in the context of my point.

 

You're right. This has all been covered before. Various posters have stated that rifles are a favorite of mass shooters when the truth is that twice as many handguns as rifles were used in the deadliest mass shootings from 1984 to 2017. So, it has been established that these so-called assault weapons are not the favored weapon of the shooters, and yet they are the ones that the uninformed are led to believe need banning. When it comes to what the difference is between a semi-automatic assault weapon and a semi-automatic weapon, the opponents of the right to self defense go with wherever the political/legal wind blows in whatever particular jurisdiction they happen to be facing. The word "arbitrary" comes strongly to mind.

The fact is, a folding stock does not make a weapon more deadly. And as far as I know, there's been no rash of bayonet deaths; in fact, I can't recall any. Also, the angle at which I hold my wrist when shooting a rifle doesn't affect my accuracy.

 

wrong. I said the 2nd should be repealed after that California bar mass shooting. My wish was not to turn the debate into an argument about your rights. The basic objective is to prevent a repeat of what happened in Las Vegas, Pittsburg, Columbine, Orlando, on and on...about mass shootings.

 

Un huh. You repeated your sentiment that the Second Amendment should be repealed, and that everyone's guns should be taken away because of all the Americans who have been killed by guns since 1980. You must have believed that everyone would agree with you and not offer a contrary view. But that's not how it works. Make a point, and you can expect a counterpoint.

 

2600 years of human history disagrees.

 

When you demand the elimination of our rights, you are starting an argument over those rights.

 

That was my point. The Second Amendment doesn't grant a right. It protects a preexisting right that we already had.

What do you contend was overturned?

You don't have to have one. But if you are free, you have the right to carry arms if you choose to do so.

That is the nature of definitions. A word means whatever its definition says.

I would say that no one in Japan has ever been free. At least, not within recorded history.

Some people do try to claim that the right does not exist.

Restrictions on rights are constitutional only if the restriction can be justified with a good reason, and only if the restriction is not so severe that it impedes the exercise of the right.

Gun control laws often have no justification whatsoever.

Nonetheless, there is no justification for banning them.

Impeding the exercise of other rights by making them cost money is equally as unconstitutional.

Our right to have guns does not interfere with the rule of law.

Federal law requires a Form 4473 for all guns, handguns and long guns alike.

After the background check is concluded then, there is no justification for any additional waiting time.

 

I've never heard of assault weapon legislation dealing with control under rapid fire.

That isn't true. They are no more dangerous than a gun without "assault" features.

Concerns about concealability can be dealt with by requiring a minimum length when folded.

 

That firearms are a precondition for freedom? Firearms? 2600 years? I find that hard to believe.

 

Free people have the right to carry arms. They don't have to carry them if they don't want to. But part of freedom involves having the right to do so.

I guess they'd have to carry them if they were called up for militia duty. But otherwise it would be their choice.

Arms. Firearms had not yet been invented in 600 BC.

Iron Age German tribes were very clear about the rights of free men. They had the right to be armed.

 

So people have the right to bare arms. I'll go with that, if you're willing to ditch the firearms. Since we're not iron age Saxons, and they had no firearms, the relevance of the beran to proposition that the right to firearms is a prerequisite for freedom seems obscure. Individual rights were rare to nonexistent in ancient times. Were no other societies free? Most of us can see that you've established a false tautology, in which freedom becomes defined as the right to bear arms. Individual rights which a person could assert against the state were rare to non-existent in ancient times.

 

RIP to the 12 people who were killed. A lot of my friends and family have also had to evacuate due to the fires, not even two days after the shooting. I need to go help them on my next day off, it's the least I could do.

 

Uh huh. You provided a video to show that pump shotguns are as good as so-called assault rifles for home defense. So my question to you is that, in the event that so-called assault rifles are banned, and people start using pump shotguns to murder other people, will you be calling for the banning of pump shotguns?

 

According to your video, a sawed-off pump shotgun appears to be just as dangerous as a so-called assault rifle, especially with the right kind of shot.

And the reason for the discrepancies concerning the status of so-called assault rifles is that some people really, really want to convince others that a semiautomatic weapon is more than a semiautomatic weapon when it's just not.

Concerning folding stocks and other such things that cause you anxiety, how many grenade attacks originating from a semiautomatic rifle are you aware of? You said you wanted folding stocks banned. Do folding stocks make it easier to conceal a rifle when trying to sneak it in somewhere to do a mass shooting? How many mass shootings are you aware of in which the shooter folded the stock in order to conceal it before shooting? And how does a flash suppressor help a mass shooter? I mean, there's no one they would need to be trying to hide their intentions from at that point, right? So why is it logical to apply such illogical thinking when it comes to what should be banned?

And as far as the dreaded pistol-grip, your concern is that it is necessary in order to stabilize the gun--specifically to control "barrel rise." I guess that you haven't heard that the AR-15 has little recoil, and that anyone can shoot them.

 

Would you deny me the right to be prepared to defend my home in the event of a home invader? A perfect world would be great, but that's just not reality.

 

Guns are arms.

The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes brought freedom with them when they invaded England. Freedom came from England to America when they established colonies here. We enshrined this freedom in our Constitution after we broke away from English rule.

"Ceorl, also spelled Churl, the free peasant who formed the basis of society in Anglo-Saxon England. His free status was marked by his right to bear arms, his attendance at local courts, and his payment of dues directly to the king. His wergild, the sum that his family could accept in place of vengeance if he were killed, was valued at 200 shillings."
Ceorl | English peasant

"Fyrd, tribal militia-like arrangement existing in Anglo-Saxon England from approximately AD 605. Local in character, it imposed military service upon every able-bodied free male. It was probably the duty of the ealderman, or sheriff, to call out and lead the fyrd. Fines imposed for neglecting the fyrd varied with the status of the individual, landholders receiving the heaviest fines and common labourers the lightest."
Fyrd | Anglo-Saxon militia

I suspect not. Freedom seems to have originated with the Iron Age Germanic tribes.

2600 years of history defined it that way.

Note the Britannica entries that I cite above.