Largest mass shooting in American history

[RayThom]

Samantha Bee has crystallized it perfectly.

Praying to God is merely a placebo. If the believer says it works then no one can make them believe otherwise. Anyone who says differently doesn't know jack shit and are vilified for their ignorance and heresy.

Meanwhile, and once the trial period is over, it has been proven time and again that the placebo has neither helped nor cured the disease. The "feel good" effects are fleeting and only returns when the next trial begins. The cycle continues yet nothing changes.

Actions speak louder than prayer but actions are hard.

So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. James 2:17. Jimmy got it right.

[Guinevere]

if we don't even try, we might as well just roll over and hand the country over to the nutbags. Stop throwing up your hands and saying "we can't" and "I doubt." TRY and keep on trying.

[Big RR]

By all means try Guin, but try in a way that will (or at least can) make a difference. Yelling and screaming and passing laws that are bound to be overturned might make some feel good, but it accomplishes little. Passing constitutional laws that might make a difference is far better IMHO. It's frustrating, but it's the only thing that will produce a change, IMHO.

Even campaigning to repeal the second amendment, although I think it is unlikely to pass, could be worthwhile in raising awareness.

[Sue U]

So the alternative is to work within the law and promote reasonable regulation of firearms that will pass constitutional muster. Better background checks, mandatory waiting permits for purchases, background checks for gun shows and private sales all would pass Constitutional muster and can be promoted.

Here's the problem, BigRR: Background checks, waiting periods, closing the "gun show loophole," etc. all would pass constitutional muster, and would have little effect on gun crime generally and no effect on mass shootings. The problem is that there are too many guns too readily available, because gun ownership is a "right" in this country. We need a drastic reduction in the sheer number of guns in circulation and strict controls on who can own any gun and why. These measures will not stand Second Amendment scrutiny, which is why the Second Amendment has to be repealed.

Ten years ago nobody thought marriage equality or legalized marijuana stood any chance of becoming the law, either. Just because it would be hard to repeal the Second Amendment doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. Working within its framework has not and cannot produce the results we need as a society.

[Big RR]

I disagree on the effects that those constitutional laws would have, and I do think that properly applied laws could keep guns out of the hands of some who might commit these mass shootings. But if you want to pursue a repeal of the second amendment, I say go for it. I don't passage of such an amendment is likely, but the debate could help frame the issues. And while I am not optimistic, who knows what could happen.

[MajGenl.Meade]

OTOH, I think I'd be fine with a ban on semi-automatic pistols and long arms.

Do you mean fully automatic, or do you think all guns should require reloading after each single shot like my grandfather's .22 Winchester? My son will probably pass that 112 year old gun on to one of his children. None have hit the age at which him or me first shot it.

We're not "gun nuts" but we do own a few. I've never bought a gun. All three of my guns were inherited.

Nooo, I thought fully automatic arms were already banned? Semi-automatic doesn't mean manual reloads after each shot. We misname something like a Colt .45 as "automatic" when in reality it's a semi-automatic. After a bullet is fired, the case is ejected and a new bullet is in place to be fired (automatically) but you have to pull the trigger again.

A real automatic pistol allows a single trigger pull and keeps on firing as long as the trigger is held back - an Uzi for example on auto mode.

[Big RR]

Are there fully automatic pistols? I would think the rapid fire would destroy the barrels.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Nope. I would have been more accurate to use the term "machine pistol" I suppose - but the fact remains, they are pistols and fully automatic



That's a Steyr. Here's a Glock 18:

[Big RR]

Interesting Meade, I've never seen that before.

[dales]

Nooo, I thought fully automatic arms were already banned?

Not in Class 3 states, like AZ.

It's very difficult to obtain fully automatic (select-fire) weapons (as it should be). CA is not a Class 3 state, so unless you're "grandfathered in" to own a Class 3 weapon...........................you're SOL.

[dales]

Another fully automatic machine pistol.

The Mauser "Broomhandle" pistol from ww2

[liberty]

I would like to see more Moslems from Eurasia migrate to this country; perhaps as many as twenty or thirty million. Their numbers would help to balance out the influx form Mexico. And unlike the Mexicans their homeland is thousands a miles away making it more likely they would developed an attachment to this country. And they come from more conservative societies; this country could use more of a balance between liberals and conservative. No I am not a conservative I just don’t want the country to go to far right or left.

[Bicycle Bill]

Commentary — It’s An Honor To Continue Being Valued Over Countless Human Lives

BY: An AR-15     

Look, I’m not the type who needs constant validation, and I have never sought preferential treatment from anyone.  I just try to focus on doing what I do and not get too caught up in what people think or say about me.  But I have to admit, it’s been hard to ignore all the support and appreciation I’ve been receiving lately, particularly over the past several years.  That’s why I want to take this opportunity to let all of you know what an absolute honor it is that you continue to value me over countless human lives.

I don’t want to get too sentimental or anything, but it really means the world to me how often you as Americans, through your words and your actions, make it known that I am more important to you than the lives of your fellow citizens.

Truly, from the bottom of my heart, thank you.

You see, I’m just a humble lightweight, magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle; I never expected this kind of outpouring of affection.  But time and time again, you’ve shown me how much I matter to you.  To see so many people — people who could be working to protect and care for human lives — actively devoting their time and energy to making sure I’m the one who’s protected and cared for instead — it’s beyond touching.

Don’t think I haven’t noticed all this.  Rarely a month goes by without all of you pausing to weigh me against a certain number of lives — often a dozen or more — and quickly deciding I’m more worthwhile.  Gosh, you must really, really love me.

I mean, wow, who do I thank first?  I guess I’ve got to start with lawmakers.  No one so consistently speaks up on my behalf, praises what I stand for, and does everything in their power to make sure no harm ever comes to me.  These are individuals who have hundreds of thousands of constituents whose lives they could so easily put ahead of my interests, yet these principled elected officials steadfastly refuse to do so.  Instead, they stick to their guiding beliefs and firmly declare that I — a simple modular rifle with high-capacity-magazine compatibility — have more value than any number of human beings.  It’s truly humbling.

What a blessing it is to reside in a society with such clear and unwavering priorities.

And here’s the thing: It’s not just one life that I’m considered more valuable than.  And it’s not 10 lives, either.  It’s not even 49 lives.  It’s many, many hundreds of lives!  Including children’s!  Each day that I’m here and they’re not is another affirmation that you consider me more valuable, more sacred, more inviolable than all of them.  Frankly, I’m not even sure what I’ve done to deserve such incredible treatment.

I can’t imagine it was always easy to hold an 8-pound aluminum-and-synthetic firearm in higher regard than the lives of your fellow citizens — after all, these are good people with rich experiences and families and dreams — but this country has always managed to find a way to put me first.  Sure, there was that difficult decade beginning in 1994 when you decided that the lives of your friends, neighbors, and loved ones were maybe a little more important than I was.  But you all responded in the best way possible in 2004: You were given the straightforward choice between me and untold numbers of innocent people’s lives, and you said resoundingly, “We’ll take the civilian version of a military weapon.”

And believe me, you’ve more than made it up to me in the years since.  How many times in the past few years have you directly compared my worth against that of individuals who were, until recently, living, breathing, and experiencing life, and arrived at the determination that I’m number one?  To be honest, I’ve kind of lost count.

Listen, I’m not sure if I’ll ever be able to pay you back for your loyalty and admiration, but I’ll try.  I’ll just keep on doing what I do best.

Now, I don’t want to jinx anything, but considering how consistently you’ve favored me over the lives of your fellow Americans — for example, in July 2012, in December 2012, in December 2015, and on and on — I can’t imagine you’ll be altering your priorities anytime soon.  So I just want to reiterate how truly grateful I am to the millions of you out there who regularly jump into action at the merest suggestion that any human life might be more valuable than I am, and who stand up proudly and say, “No, this particular device is far, far more important than someone’s child, than someone’s spouse, than someone’s parent.”

And after last weekend, I know I can count on you to do the same again.

(from 'The Onion' — link here)

-"BB"-

[Burning Petard]

Me, I am a knee-jerk liberal who owns lots of guns and once upon a time even made my own ammo because it was more accurate than what I could buy. And I voted in the last NRA leadership election.

But I think the 2nd Amendment should be trashed. If you read it as an ordinary sentence in ordinary English, without prior dogma, it says two important things. 1. The way to control the militia is to allow everybody to have guns. 2. This is the ONLY right in the constitution that shall not be limited. Both things are nonsense in contemporary USofA and the second assertion, that this right shall not be infringed, is ignored. The second Amendment says any citizen should be permitted to own a fully functional Abrams Tank. 150 years ago it was read this way--non-governmental groups or individuals could have any weapon the government had. The only restriction was paying for it. Local yacht clubs began races and saluted the sunset by firing a real cannon. Now we have lots of limits on that right to keep and bear arms. No short shotguns. No hand grenades. No 80mm mortars. The right to keep and bear any kind of arms at all can be denied to citizens who are part of certain defined classes.

It would be far more honest for the politicians, the NRA, gun dealers, news editors to admit the Second Amendment is nonsense, just like an orthodox rabbi no longer finds it appropriate to sacrifice a bullock. But it seems impossible for current political functionaries to do anything that is based on actual real world data.

((((((snailgate))))))

[Burning Petard]

That full auto broom handle Mauser goes way back before even the first world war. The last German Emperor used one for boar hunting as a lad because he had physical limitations that would not let him handle a rifle. Churchill carried one as a war correspondent during the Boer War.

((((((snailgate))))))

[BoSoxGal]

'We normally sell two a day, today we are selling up to 15 an hour': Georgia gun shop reports soaring AR 15 sales while Pennsylvania dealer has sold 15,000 since Orlando massacre

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... sacre.html

[MajGenl.Meade]

If you read it as an ordinary sentence in ordinary English, without prior dogma, it says two important things. 1. The way to control the militia is to allow everybody to have guns. 2. This is the ONLY right in the constitution that shall not be limited.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This is a very ordinary sentence in ordinary English.

1. This is nothing to do with controlling a militia by allowing everyone to have guns - that's some idea you have dreamed up. It is everything to do with the need at the time for a weak central government to rely upon state militias rather than creating a huge standing army. The citizens were to have guns so that militias could be formed for the benefit of the security of the State. These were, of course, to be well regulated - meaning controlled, trained and ready for possible deployment. In 1861, Lincoln did not call for a huge standing Federal army but for state volunteers, raised and supplied by the states. This was probably the last vestige of "militia" in action.

2. Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. There's a right that shall not be limited. The 4th: "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Another one. And so on.

As to the Onion piece, legislation during the Clinton years did nothing to ban the AR-15. What that legislation did was to legalise the damn thing (and others like it) PROVIDED that it did not have two or more "military features" - such as a folding stock AND a grenade launcher. There were six or seven items - but as long as the gun had only ONE of them, it remained legal. Nowadays, I guess you can have more than one of those previously forbidden features. Sometimes even satire needs some accuracy.

[Gob]

Regulated.

verb (used with object), regulated, regulating.
1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.:
to regulate household expenses.

[Long Run]

If you read it as an ordinary sentence in ordinary English, without prior dogma, it says two important things. 1. The way to control the militia is to allow everybody to have guns. 2. This is the ONLY right in the constitution that shall not be limited. Both things are nonsense in contemporary USofA and the second assertion, that this right shall not be infringed, is ignored. The second Amendment says any citizen should be permitted to own a fully functional Abrams Tank. 150 years ago it was read this way--non-governmental groups or individuals could have any weapon the government had. The only restriction was paying for it. Local yacht clubs began races and saluted the sunset by firing a real cannon. Now we have lots of limits on that right to keep and bear arms. No short shotguns. No hand grenades. No 80mm mortars. The right to keep and bear any kind of arms at all can be denied to citizens who are part of certain defined classes.

It would be far more honest for the politicians, the NRA, gun dealers, news editors to admit the Second Amendment is nonsense, just like an orthodox rabbi no longer finds it appropriate to sacrifice a bullock. But it seems impossible for current political functionaries to do anything that is based on actual real world data.
((((((snailgate))))))

The Constitution is not ignored, it is amended. The 2nd Amendment argument is like a lot of esoteric ones, and is basically a pyramid, with the wide bottom full of no-nothing and thoughtless opinion, and more effort as one goes up the narrowing slope, until at the top, there is an understanding of how this came to be (I am not any more than half-way up the slope myself). Here is a good article on the actual research and intent of the 2nd Amendment as told from a liberal news source of liberal law professor scholarship: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06 ... .html?_r=0

[MajGenl.Meade]

Regulated.

verb (used with object), regulated, regulating.
1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.:
to regulate household expenses.

Were you adding something to the discussion? Hmmm?

And I wrote:

These (militia) were, of course, to be well regulated - meaning controlled, trained and ready for possible deployment