Now is not the time to talk about gun control (4 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 1, guests: 4)
Right-wing Daily Wire commentator Charlie Kirk said at his Turning Points USA Political Action Committee Faith conference on Wednesday that the tens of thousands of annual firearm-related deaths in the United States are an acceptable price to pay in order for Americans to keep their Second Amendment constitutional right to bear arms............

The massacre at the Christian Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee on Monday, March 27th – which left three students and three staffers dead and reinvigorated the perpetual national debate over gun control – was the topic of a question posed by an attendee to Kirk at the "Freedom Night in America" event.

"How's it going, Charlie? I'm Austin. I just had a question related to Second Amendment rights. You saw the shooting that happened recently and a lot of people are upset. But I'm seeing people who argue for the other side that they want to take our Second Amendment rights away. How do we convince them that it's important to have the right to defend ourselves and, uh, all that good stuff?" he asked.

Kirk delivered an extensive response.

"The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you – 'wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that' – well, then you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you've not read any 20th-century history. You're just living in Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families," Kirk said.

It would appear that Kirk has not familiarized himself with the Founders' writings either. A 2018 report in The Washington Post highlighted several key tenets of the establishment of the Second Amendment, which have glaring relevance to our modern era and refute what Kirk claimed:

1. The Founding Fathers were devoted to the militia.

2. The amendment's primary justification was to prevent the United States from needing a standing army.

3. The authors of the Bill of Rights were not concerned with an 'individual' or 'personal' right to bear arms.

4. The Founding Fathers were very concerned about who should, or should not, be armed.

5. Eighteenth-century Americans tolerated a certain amount of violence and instability, as long as it came from other white Americans.

Kirk then attempted to justify allowing anyone and everyone to own guns, regardless of the risks to public health and safety:

"Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price – 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price," Kirk declared.

"Wow," a man in the audience exclaimed.

"You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving – speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services – is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road," Kirk added, declining to mention that the operation and ownership of motor vehicles are heavily regulated privileges that can carry severe consequences when they are violated............

MSN

www.msn.com
 
Optimus Prime said:
Right-wing Daily Wire commentator Charlie Kirk said at his Turning Points USA Political Action Committee Faith conference on Wednesday that the tens of thousands of annual firearm-related deaths in the United States are an acceptable price to pay in order for Americans to keep their Second Amendment constitutional right to bear arms............

The massacre at the Christian Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee on Monday, March 27th – which left three students and three staffers dead and reinvigorated the perpetual national debate over gun control – was the topic of a question posed by an attendee to Kirk at the "Freedom Night in America" event.

"How's it going, Charlie? I'm Austin. I just had a question related to Second Amendment rights. You saw the shooting that happened recently and a lot of people are upset. But I'm seeing people who argue for the other side that they want to take our Second Amendment rights away. How do we convince them that it's important to have the right to defend ourselves and, uh, all that good stuff?" he asked.

Kirk delivered an extensive response.

"The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you – 'wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that' – well, then you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you've not read any 20th-century history. You're just living in Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families," Kirk said.

It would appear that Kirk has not familiarized himself with the Founders' writings either. A 2018 report in The Washington Post highlighted several key tenets of the establishment of the Second Amendment, which have glaring relevance to our modern era and refute what Kirk claimed:

1. The Founding Fathers were devoted to the militia.

2. The amendment's primary justification was to prevent the United States from needing a standing army.

3. The authors of the Bill of Rights were not concerned with an 'individual' or 'personal' right to bear arms.

4. The Founding Fathers were very concerned about who should, or should not, be armed.

5. Eighteenth-century Americans tolerated a certain amount of violence and instability, as long as it came from other white Americans.

Kirk then attempted to justify allowing anyone and everyone to own guns, regardless of the risks to public health and safety:

"Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price – 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price," Kirk declared.

"Wow," a man in the audience exclaimed.

"You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving – speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services – is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road," Kirk added, declining to mention that the operation and ownership of motor vehicles are heavily regulated privileges that can carry severe consequences when they are violated............

MSN

www.msn.com
Click to expand...
And, let's not forget that the founding fathers also ensured there was a registry of every firearm that was privately owned.
 
FullMonte said:
And, let's not forget that the founding fathers also ensured there was a registry of every firearm that was privately owned.
Click to expand...
And people say things like “we’re turning into the wild west”

well, the ‘wild west’ wasn’t as wild as Hollywood has told us for a century and it had gun control laws, I’ll see if I can find an article on it
 
Optimus Prime said:
And people say things like “we’re turning into the wild west”

well, the ‘wild west’ wasn’t as wild as Hollywood has told us for a century and it had gun control laws, I’ll see if I can find an article on it
Click to expand...

What was the gunfight at the O.K. Corral about? Gun control.

www.smithsonianmag.com

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West

Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business
www.smithsonianmag.com www.smithsonianmag.com

It's October 26, 1881, in Tombstone, and Arizona is not yet a state. The O.K. Corral is quiet, and it's had an unremarkable existence for the two years it's been standing—although it's about to become famous.

Marshall Virgil Earp, having deputized his brothers Wyatt and Morgan and his pal Doc Holliday, is having a gun control problem. Long-running tensions between the lawmen and a faction of cowboys – represented this morning by Billy Claiborne, the Clanton brothers, and the McLaury brothers – will come to a head over Tombstone's gun law.

The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. (Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.) But these cowboys had no intention of doing so as they strolled around town with Colt revolvers and Winchester rifles in plain sight. Earlier on this fateful day, Virgil had disarmed one cowboy forcefully, while Wyatt confronted another and county sheriff Johnny Behan failed to persuade two more to turn in their firearms.

When the Earps and Holliday met the cowboys on Fremont Street in the early afternoon, Virgil once again called on them to disarm. Nobody knows who fired first. Ike Clanton and Billy Claiborne, who were unarmed, ran at the start of the fight and survived. Billy Clanton and the McLaury brothers, who stood and fought, were killed by the lawmen, all of whom walked away.
 
Last edited:
The Guns Makes Us Safer Illusion
The reality is that guns are responsible for the majority of violence related death and injury in this country period. It is an incontrovertible statistic. Give people guns and they, not all, not most, but an unacceptable percentage will shoot each other and shoot at strangers. The GOP, vested in their Precioussss, will never acknowledge this fact, that we are number one among our contemporary countries for gun violence.

While there are few exceptions, the general rule is that in the face of a mass shooting, armed citizens become preoccupied looking out for their own arses, running away, no intention of stopping the violence, only becoming involved with bad guys if they are directly threatened or cornered, and even then, while average people when armed may think they're tough, are they really, prepared to engage in a life or death gun fight if they have a choice not to? Take a look at the Uvalde Police when faced with a school shooter. They took their sweet time, while parents of the kids being slaughtered were restrained from rushing in to save their kids, to do something,

And if there is a space full of armed shooters, there is a good chance that armed citizens will be mistaken for the bad guys and shot especially if they are black or brown. And what a nightmare for police walking into a shooting with multiple citizens armed with their guns out. :unsure:

The worst aspects of routinely armed citizens are human emotions, the sense of holding lethal power with the squeeze of a trigger, can cause a loss of perspective. Friends who kill friends in a disagreement, road rage, the flagrant abuse of the Stand Your Ground standard, and primary is the mental health aspect, do we want mentally unstable people with access to guns?

The bottom line is that the 2nd Amendment,written when muskets were the standard is in dire need of an update. Guns as lethal weapons must be subject to high standards of regulation, including mental screening

But the sad fact is that mass shootings have become a daily occurrence in this country, the GOP knows their base wants no restrictions on gun ownership or carrying, and don’t want any inconvenience. Hell, their base would be happy to let legal gun owners shoot people at their own discretion without legal accountability, and today’s GOP is more than willing to let Americans sleep in their blood soaked beds as long as they will continue to be elected.

Maybe the majority, will one day be able to turn this around… but I’m not holding my breath. :oops:

 
MT15 said:
This is totally normal, right?

Click to expand...

From that article:

After the drivers exchanged words, a water bottle reportedly was thrown from Hale's truck. WTLV-TV reports Allison responded by grabbing a handgun and firing a shot.


That shot hit Hale's 5-year-old daughter, so Hale reportedly fired his own handgun from behind the SUV. Bullets hit the back of Allison's vehicle, wounding his 14-year-old daughter inside.

Prosecutors believe Hale was at fault. WJXT-TV reports he faces three counts of attempted second-degree murder, three counts of aggravated assault and the shooting charge.

Allison originally was charged with attempted murder. But prosecutors have dropped that charge, citing Florida's “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law based on the throwing of the bottle.
Click to expand...


So just so we're clear: in Florida, you can legally shoot someone if they throw a water bottle at you.
 
brandon said:
From that article:




So just so we're clear: in Florida, you can legally shoot someone if they throw a water bottle at you.
Click to expand...
Guns make it too easy to put your STUPID on display. With disagreements guns turn fist fights into blood baths… :unsure: And the worst? Though policy and turning a blind eye to the reality, the GOP is endorsing gun violence as an an acceptable Method to resolve differences. My Precious!! (caress). 😘
 
Louisville appears to be a former employee shooting. 4 dead, multiple others wounded. In a bank, of all places, which should be fairly secure.

 
MT15 said:
Louisville appears to be a former employee shooting. 4 dead, multiple others wounded. In a bank, of all places, which should be fairly secure.

Click to expand...


I've said this before and I'm going to say it again. I carried an M16. Usually, I carried and used it on semi-auto, not full auto. An AR15 is an M16 on semi-auto. It is a combat weapon designed for firefights. They DO NOT belong in the hands of civilians.

www.cnn.com

Gunman livestreamed mass shooting at Louisville bank that left 5 dead and 8 injured, police say | CNN

A 25-year-old bank employee opened fire at his workplace in downtown Louisville, Kentucky, on Monday morning and livestreamed the attack that left four dead and nine others injured, authorities said.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

The gun used in the shooting was an AR-15-style rifle, a federal law enforcement source told CNN. The AR-15, a semi-automatic rifle, is the most popular sporting rifle in the US, and about 24.6 million people have owned an AR-15 or similarly style rifle, according to the 2021 National Firearms Survey.
 
BullSheetBuddha said:
I've said this before and I'm going to say it again. I carried an M16. Usually, I carried and used it on semi-auto, not full auto. An AR15 is an M16 on semi-auto. It is a combat weapon designed for firefights. They DO NOT belong in the hands of civilians.

www.cnn.com

Gunman livestreamed mass shooting at Louisville bank that left 5 dead and 8 injured, police say | CNN

A 25-year-old bank employee opened fire at his workplace in downtown Louisville, Kentucky, on Monday morning and livestreamed the attack that left four dead and nine others injured, authorities said.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

The gun used in the shooting was an AR-15-style rifle, a federal law enforcement source told CNN. The AR-15, a semi-automatic rifle, is the most popular sporting rifle in the US, and about 24.6 million people have owned an AR-15 or similarly style rifle, according to the 2021 National Firearms Survey.
Click to expand...
While I don't disagree with you, we don't yet know if it was an actual AR-15 or something similar. But I agree, not sure why anyone would actually need one for hunting or home protection as a shotgun or handgun would be more ideal.

These assault rifles need to go away.

That said, practically speaking, I don't know how you get them all off the street in any reasonable time frame.
 
DaveXA said:
While I don't disagree with you, we don't yet know if it was an actual AR-15 or something similar. But I agree, not sure why anyone would actually need one for hunting or home protection as a shotgun or handgun would be more ideal.

These assault rifles need to go away.

That said, practically speaking, I don't know how you get them all off the street in any reasonable time frame.
Click to expand...
Well, we can at least stop the retail sale of them.
 
One thing about the AR line of weapons is they're not very durable.

Certainly not like the British 30 cal 1903, known as a 303 was. I had one until 2003 when I noticed that the bolt dogs had developed a bit of a taper from wear and the bolt handle would jump up a bit when it was fired. I cut it up to prevent it from ever harming anyone if that bolt were to open up all the way when it was fired.

I'm sure that all of the 100 year old parts were original at that point in time. All of the Army guns were like that in that time. Most of them could go a 100 years and still be serviceable. That was the rule, not the exception.

My assessment of the the AK line is that if parts were to become unavailable within 40 years there would be darned few of them left which would still be serviceable. In fact I think within 20 years with no parts available a whole bunch perhaps half of them would not function well. They might still shoot a first round, but they'd jamb if someone tried to fire them fast.


Focus on killing the parts supply for those weapons as well as stopping the sale of new ones in our market.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Share this page

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Back
Top Bottom