While I do not agree with their message, as long as they have permission to present their opinions in a lawful and legal manor, then what they are doing is fine. I would much rather see them participate in the process like this, rather than acting like other groups that wear masks, costumes, burn and loot or even attack people.
Curious what part of their message you don't agree with? Genuinely. The chasm of difference between owning hunting rifles, and even handguns for protection, and assault rifles is enormous, and the money being spent by "interest groups" to continue to allow weapons of war to be sold (for large profits, by the way) is a stain on this country.
Cuckarooni and cheese Show me where i threatened anyone? I said id like to see a liberal balls up and come demand them.
Frankly, I feel that the amount of regulations currently in place is adequate. For those that do not know the difference between an AR 15 and an M 16, The first is a sporting rifle popular for target shooting, varmint hunting and small game. The other is an assault rifle that is highly regulated. You can not own one that has the option to go full auto unless you meet federal regulations and requirements. To address the problem we currently have with school shootings is going to take a larger discussion than the demand to remove guns. Mental health needs to be addressed and defined. School security needs to be a priority.
I am not sure what you want done here. I am not sure you do either. What is an assault rifle in your mind? Does it always out gun a, say .270 Winchester?
I think I will sit this one out about the kids protesting. I sort of think it's like practicing to shoot baskets the wrong way. The practice is not of much value if not harmful.
I wish I could tell if this was a parody or not, because if this is how you really feel, I feel sorry for the anger in your life.
You're not paying attention....as much time as you spend in the OT section, don't think you'd have missed the point that far
Thank you for a sincere answer (and not calling anyone who disagrees with you a "cuck".) While I certainly agree that it's a complex issue to solve that very likely includes greater focus on mental health, I would counter that statistics suggest it's not the issue that gun supporters make it out to be. 50% of all mentally ill people are women, and studies have conclusively shown that the mentally ill are FAR greater to be a victim of a violent attack, rather than the perpetrator -- neither of those are ever meted out in the right's argument. There's also the argument that there are mentally ill people all over the world, yet the U.S. seems to be the only one with a gun violence epidemic. The difference in those situations certainly seems to be gun control laws. Regarding your comments on the difference between an M-16 and an AR-15... The AR is a lighter, smaller version of the M-16 that -- when sold to the public is semi-auto. Sure, it can be used for target shooting, but it's every bit as powerful as the M-16. I guess my question is, why is that kind of power necessary when all of the activities you've mentioned are equally doable with less? I don't have the all the answers (obviously) but to me it's too much of a coincidence that most of these mass shootings are with the same weapon time and time again.
Let's not pretend that any of us have the answers to the gun debate. I'm just another idiot who doesn't want my kid to get shot (and doesn't think any kid should have to worry about shit like that). What I do think is that defenders of the second amendment are hiding behind statutes that were written when you could fire a round or two a minute. In those days -- regardless of how you interpret the finer details of the article, being able to have your own guns probably felt like a freedom that wasn't irrational. But I don't feel like it's unfair to have civil discourse -- as a society -- around what is and what isn't acceptable firepower to have almost completely unfettered access to. In my opinion, if the argument for guns is hunting, recreation and safety, but the counter to gun control is which gun outguns another, aren't we already fucked? It should not feel like an act of treason to ask for more strict regulation on things like bump stocks, gun shows, background checks, etc. The first-world countries that don't share our gun violence epidemic have strong gun regulation. Even taking the type of gun out of the equation, if you're a responsible gun owner who's of sound mental faculties, why should stronger regulations matter?
I would like to point out a few things here for your consideration. Your statement that "studies have conclusively shown that the mentally ill are FAR greater to be a victim of a violent attack, rather than the perpetrator -- " is based upon number of mentally ill vs the number of mentally ill that pose a danger. The truest way to examine the issue is to correlate the number of attacks by mentally ill vs those perpetrated by those that are not. Obviously you find that an overwhelming amount do in fact suffer from that condition. Your statement and beliefs about the M 16 and the AR 15 is misleading as well. The M 16 was designed for war and to cause a high injury rate vs death. It is a 5.56 NATO round and can function in full auto. The AR 15 covers a wide caliber range from .22 on up. Most of those sold to the public are not NATO 5.56. These do not have a full auto function. To blame all of the ills in society on a style of firearm is ridiculous. Like saying that all revolvers are the same, or all bolt action rifles are the same. Good grief, JFK was killed with a poor quality bolt action rifle. No one riled up the public then about "SNIPER" rifles..is that what we have to look forward to next?
I never said that all ills are due to the style of firearm... In fact I've stated a couple times that it's actually a very complex issue and agreed that mental illness is part of the problem. I'm far less knowledgable about guns than you are, I can tell that from the 2 posts we've exchanged. That said, I'm one to think that one or two occasions might be a coincidence, but with nearly every recent mass shooting involving an AR-15 I'm inclined to believe that something is going on. Again, I recognize the vast complexity of the issue, and I'm sure it won't magically, instantly go away if every AR-15 stopped existing. But I sincerely hope that most rational people would look at the confluence of events and recognize that there's a combination of available (and affordable) firepower, lack of oversight, mental health neglect, and monetary influence from the gun lobby causing our law-makers to perhaps not necessarily have society's best interests as their top priority that is getting people killed and causing children to not feel safe in their schools. Because of that, I'm all for people asking more questions and demanding answers from those lawmakers -- which is what this thread was all about.
Offer us your amendment. Let see if it meets your needs, and mine. I strongly believe we all have the right to defend ourselves with the force of arms when necessary. Our 2nd amendment provides for this right. I sure don't want your kid nor anyone else's shot. I offered several times now what I think are the appropriate actions. But what do you suggest that would pass in our system?
