The shooters have all been Democrats!!!

This being predominantly a Christian country, and one of the more fanatical ones out there, one could also assume that all of them were baptized as children also. Most of them probably declared themselves as Christian at some point.

I hope that doesn't make all these killings religious in nature? I mean, Christians mass murdering people in USA, that's world news! Christian Democrats at that!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

But taking the second amendment literally means any weapon should be allowed. The second amendment is outdated and that is what pierre morgan was trying to tell alex jones when he exploded with his temper tantrums.

I'd say the word "bear" in the amendment precludes tanks, nukes and any other heavy weapon. I believe the federalist papers explained that civilian should be armed as a soldier - no one I know is saying the second allows missiles or some such and to insinuate otherwise is kind of strawmanlike.

like banning straw purchases? That would be a good start I think. But then we have some really stupid gun laws that aim to control short barralled rifles and silencers. I see NO HARM in owning such items and further the federal governments is basically classifying such items as luxuries in a sense by taxing them $200 a piece, if the state even allows such items.

Straw purchasing is already illegal and has been for a long time.

I fully comprehend why people are fed up with the government. Most of the legislation attempts to make it difficult for people to own any gun because of extended waiting periods, taxes and fees and otherwise frivolous laws that make little if any sense. I am for mild gun control, even the national firearms act of 1968 seems excessive to me.

68 GCA is the BATFE employment act, much abuse has occured because of it.

As far as I know that is for illegally owning any automatic weapon made after 1987 the brady bill which coincidentally expired. Or having items/accessories that are untaxed and thus illegal. It is like driving without license plates, registration or drivers license.

The 10 year sentence I mentioned is for use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. There is also a 5 year mandatory for robbing an establishment serving alchohol. These are usually plea bargained away for lessor guilty pleas with shorter sentences and allow prosecutor to pump conviction record but puts criminal back on street much sooner.

reply to post by beezzer

I joined the Libertarian Party after the past election. I lean conservative on many issues, not so much on others.

Use to call myself a "conservative" but i have come to the realization there is not too much of the current state of the union I would want to keep.

When so much power has been centralized I would say this country is in dire need of a restoration party.

Starting of with a restoration of what the 2nd amendment was meant to be.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Yeah, I noticed. There's no intention by most in this thread to discuss anything. I think some people use this site as a toilet for their vomit, or to gang up for good ole bash fest. Heated discussions and debates are great, they're fun as well as enlightening but when people outright declare you an enemy or they have reached an extreme opinion on others different than themselves... nothing productive can be achieved.

There's plenty of fish in this sea though, people seeking to have meaningful conversations on our divisive issues. The letter to the editor in the OP is a limp noodle that some are pretending is a sword. Which isn't to say that it's taken lightly that half of Americans have become enemies in their eyes, not necessarily based on any facts but undoubtedly with desire.

Hey pot, meet kettle....and I rarely see a conservative say anything remotely as hateful as the comments from the left. But I do see many conservatives, and a growing number of them, being negative towards the baloney the GOP tries to pass.

But does the left say anything negative towards the Democrat Party? Hardly see a beep, though a lot of you jump in to defend it.....even when they are in the wrong.

reply to post by MidnightTide

Hey pot, meet kettle....and I rarely see a conservative say anything remotely as hateful as the comments from the left. But I do see many conservatives, and a growing number of them, being negative towards the baloney the GOP tries to pass.

Ah, ok. I take it you haven't read ATS lately.

CJ

Originally posted by MidnightTide


Hey pot, meet kettle....and I rarely see a conservative say anything remotely as hateful as the comments from the left. But I do see many conservatives, and a growing number of them, being negative towards the baloney the GOP tries to pass.

But does the left say anything negative towards the Democrat Party? Hardly see a beep, though a lot of you jump in to defend it.....even when they are in the wrong.

Everything I have seen has been absolutely, positively, without a doubt the OTHER way around. I have no idea what kind of rose colored glasses you are looking through but they must be a very strong prescription.

reply to post by MsAphrodite


OMFG, another left-right thread?

Common people, you are supposed to know better than that..

They are the SAME bast****!

Peace out.

reply to post by bigwig22


Or you could apply yourself by actually reading the threads contents. But, alas I know that might be too much to ask.

reply to post by MsAphrodite

Or you could apply yourself by actually reading the threads contents.

What part of the OP did this member fail to read again? The part where you state that you don't actually believe this article and that you're just provoking debate about unfairly labeling political groups? In which part of the OP did you say that Aphrodite? All I got was this:

There is a common thread that is quite interesting in the recent, and even not so recent shootings. ALL of the killers have been registered Democrats.

Or the article that you posted with NO explanation, claiming rather clearly that none of those shooters were conservatives or Republicans, but were all Democrats and liberals.

You posted a lie and since then you've been backpeddling and acting as if you were merely provoking discussion, none of you seem to want to own up to the fact that you were wrong. The mods are more than welcome to silence my post, but we all know, including the members defending your OP and yourself here, that your OP was touting this as FACT.

Originally posted by neo96

Really?

Guess someone forgot OWS guess they also forgot the guy with the most drone kills all over the globe.

Same guy who is going around arming dictator,and freedom fighter alike,and drug cartel.

Amerkans, guns in your hands are bad, but they are fine in everyone elses hands.

The hypocrisy is thick.

Agree.

Hypocritical, and against EVERYTHING the Dems supposedly believe in.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I will say this. The Democrats who are pushing gun laws, and bans haven't realized ALL these mass murders are mentally ill. They are way too busy enacting or pushing gun bans, instead of making sure the mentally ill don't have access to ANY type of weapon, regardless if its a gun, or a butter knife.

TRUTH, not a lie.

Going back to drinking my king size cola, in NY city...........

Originally posted by Phoenix

I'd say the word "bear" in the amendment precludes tanks, nukes and any other heavy weapon. I believe the federalist papers explained that civilian should be armed as a soldier - no one I know is saying the second allows missiles or some such and to insinuate otherwise is kind of strawmanlike.

I think you are correct on this. But we also have "a well regulated militia" and many people overlook this. People do cherry pick where they want to give emphasis and downplay other stuff. I am trying to be as unbiased as possible.

My form of gun control is simply ban and/or otherwise control items that pose risk to unintended targets such as short barrel shotguns and armor piercing rounds. SBS spread the pellets wide and can hit unintended targets easily. APR tend to overpenetrate targets as they are designed to penetrate through armor and pose unusual risk as well. As for automatic weapons they should be controlled but not banned. Those applying to buy automatics should have to undergo a certification program in addition to the normal background checks to ensure they take gun safety and maintainance seriously. They should pay the $200 tax stamp to register their gun.


Short Barrelled Rifles pose no unusual risk to anyone. They shoot pistol caliber loads through an extended barrel which makes them more reliable than normal pistosl, more fun, and more safe for unintended targets.

Silencers are somewhat of a gray area. They are known to be used by criminals to kill people and escape detection. I think they should be taxed $200 as well.

Concealed Carry Permits make no sense to me whatsoever. If you buy a gun it should be taken for granted that you can use it for more than just target practice, such as personal protection if need be. If you have your gun constantly locked up in a safe then that defeats everything.

I consider this mild gun control that protects society, but at the same time does not really infringe the second amendment.

like banning straw purchases? That would be a good start I think. But then we have some really stupid gun laws that aim to control short barralled rifles and silencers. I see NO HARM in owning such items and further the federal governments is basically classifying such items as luxuries in a sense by taxing them $200 a piece, if the state even allows such items.

Straw purchasing is already illegal and has been for a long time.

Apparently the government does not put enough emphasis on this. The fact you can go to any big city ghetto and purchase a gun tells the whole story.

I fully comprehend why people are fed up with the government. Most of the legislation attempts to make it difficult for people to own any gun because of extended waiting periods, taxes and fees and otherwise frivolous laws that make little if any sense. I am for mild gun control, even the national firearms act of 1968 seems excessive to me.

68 GCA is the BATFE employment act, much abuse has occured because of it.

They should roll back the laws quite a bit and show good faith if they want people to trust government.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

I think you are correct on this. But we also have "a well regulated militia" and many people overlook this. People do cherry pick where they want to give emphasis and downplay other stuff. I am trying to be as unbiased as possible.

As per Title 10 USC 311

All able-bodied americans from 17 to 45 years of age are members of the Militia. American women who are members of the national guard are members of the Militia. Former members of the U.S.Army, navy, air force and Marine corps are members of the Militia until 64 years of age. (described in 32-313). The national guard and naval militia are called the organized Militia. The unorganized militia is everyone in the militia who is not in the national guard or the naval militia.

We are all in the Militia. For the Militia to be "well regulated", meaning trained and ready, the Govt should be training US. They have failed, as it is viewed as an opposing force to the Govt controlling more of our life.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
My form of gun control is simply ban and/or otherwise control items that pose risk to unintended targets such as short barrel shotguns and armor piercing rounds. SBS spread the pellets wide and can hit unintended targets easily. APR tend to overpenetrate targets as they are designed to penetrate through armor and pose unusual risk as well. As for automatic weapons they should be controlled but not banned. Those applying to buy automatics should have to undergo a certification program in addition to the normal background checks to ensure they take gun safety and maintainance seriously. They should pay the $200 tax stamp to register their gun.

And sadly your form is against the 2 Amendment.
For Fully Automatic firearms, they are not banned. The Govt has basically adopted yet again another sin tax on them. A $200 tax stamp, among other things, is against the Constitution.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Short Barrelled Rifles pose no unusual risk to anyone. They shoot pistol caliber loads through an extended barrel which makes them more reliable than normal pistosl, more fun, and more safe for unintended targets.

Your first statement is correct.
Your second statement is not all true. SBRs can be chambered in rifle cartridges, and pistol as well.
The most popular SBR is the AR15 in a 6" barrel format.
You can skirt the law by purchasing a rifle, with no buttstock, thus making it a pistol and having the barrel as any length.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Silencers are somewhat of a gray area. They are known to be used by criminals to kill people and escape detection. I think they should be taxed $200 as well.

Yet another sin tax.
They are not silencers anymore then a ballistic vest is bullet proof. Hollywood has corrupted the actual reality of such items. They are suppressors.
They will baffle the sound, but nothing near what movies portray them as.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Concealed Carry Permits make no sense to me whatsoever. If you buy a gun it should be taken for granted that you can use it for more than just target practice, such as personal protection if need be. If you have your gun constantly locked up in a safe then that defeats everything.

YES, we agree on something fully.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I consider this mild gun control that protects society, but at the same time does not really infringe the second amendment.

The freedoms of you neighbor are not yours to meddle with.
Unless it directly negatively affects you, and I am not talking feelings or fear, then you have no say in it.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

They should roll back the laws quite a bit and show good faith if they want people to trust government.

YES again.
Good grief, Hell has frozen over huh?

reply to post by macman


I don't view the government as an evil entity. I view the elected officials, whom the misinformed/brainwashed public votes upon, as the enemy. Also I have no problem with taxing gray area items that can be viewed either as dangerous or as luxuries. The only alternative is to outright ban stuff which most of the time is overkill.

Most people DO view suppressors/silencers as gray area items. Suppressing a 9mm or .45acp seems normal, but I have seen people trying to suppress a .22lr or .32acp gun, which is typical of assassin type motives. If you can't stand the noise of small caliber weapons then you probably should not be shooting at all.

SBR typically are for pistol rifles. I love them! You get 50%-100% longer distance than shot from a typical pistol, and the platform is sturdy since it involves a buttstock thus making shooting more relaxed/enjoyable/reliable. A 9mm uzi is said to go out to 120 yards regardless if auto or semi-auto.

BREAKING NEWS: All previous shooters ate cereal for breakfast! Could your child be the next "sandy hook killer"? More on this at 10:00.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

I don't view the government as an evil entity.

Then I would say you are not paying attention.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I view the elected officials, whom the misinformed/brainwashed public votes upon, as the enemy.

One on the same. They grow Govt, Govt grows to aid the politician. One washes the back of the other.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Also I have no problem with taxing gray area items that can be viewed either as dangerous or as luxuries. The only alternative is to outright ban stuff which most of the time is overkill.

So, you are fine with sin taxes???
How is that not infringing again??
You are also then fine with the Govt deciding what is good and what is bad?? I guess freedom just died a little more today.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Most people DO view suppressors/silencers as gray area items. Suppressing a 9mm or .45acp seems normal, but I have seen people trying to suppress a .22lr or .32acp gun, which is typical of assassin type motives. If you can't stand the noise of small caliber weapons then you probably should not be shooting at all.

I can't help the uneducated or the ignorant.
Suppressors are also used for hunting. Or for use to assist with hearing loss. Shall not be infringed upon still applies to this.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
SBR typically are for pistol rifles. I love them! You get 50%-100% longer distance than shot from a typical pistol, and the platform is sturdy since it involves a buttstock thus making shooting more relaxed/enjoyable/reliable. A 9mm uzi is said to go out to 120 yards regardless if auto or semi-auto.

I would say no. As the acronym stands for Short Barreled Rifle. Not long barreled pistol.
There is popularity to have a SBR chambered in the pistol rounds, due to price of ammo and availability of the conversion parts for the popular AR15 platform.
But, as a whole, the SBR is still for a short barreled rifle, chambered in 233.

There's a handgun made that will fire just about every caliber that a rifle will fire.

One can take down a elephant with a handgun. Only difference is you got to have a strong wrist and a good stance of the recoil....and you might have to stand a little closer to the elephant with a handgun than with a rifle.

Grizzly bears are taken down with handguns quite regularly.

Automobiles are flipped over using a handgun quite regularly.

A high powered handgun ain't for wimps...that's for sure.

I think the Ft Hood shooting had a different emphasis than the school shootings. POTUS in his first term wasn't in the mood to do gun control. I think it was too hot of an issue for the Democrats to tackle, and they figured he would have a second term he would have less limitation, as he so aptly told his Komrade in the Soviet Union. After one has to assume the military is armed in general, so it is not so odd for one of them to go haywire. But remember, after that the govt started cracking down on returning vets, because they knew these vets really know how to handle guns.
The Ft. Hood shooter was definitely on the left side of the aisle, his parents were Palestinian, and he had lots of shady connections to terror organizations. Democrats have enabled Islamist radicals since the Carter days. So even if the guy wasn't a registered Democrat, he sure was on that side of the conspiracy theory. Most of the other recent shooters had pretty left leaning psyches even if they were not registered Democrat. The people in high places had to use such people to achieve their goals. The letters and fb pages left by these people showed their left leaning ideas, even the guy who flew the plane into the IRS building was full of left leaning ideas.
This administration wanted to paint conservatives, and Tea Party members especially as nutcases with guns, so they have been building their case against conservatives since the beginning of Obama term.

reply to post by MsAphrodite


Did anyone post this link, debunking this? I am not going to go through 18 pages when I see the information is false, but here it is. I have a lovely, intelligent, Fierce supervisor at work that quickly shot me down when I offered up incorrectly, as FACT, the claim in this post that all the recent shooters were Democrats

www.examiner.com...

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by bigwig22

 

Or you could apply yourself by actually reading the threads contents. But, alas I know that might be too much to ask.

Oh, I didnt think that the subject of the thread was hidden in other posts.. i thought the OP was the one to refer to when we are talking about the subject of a thread. Did you write :

There is a common thread that is quite interesting in the recent, and even not so recent shootings. ALL of the killers have been registered Democrats. Democrats are the ones who want to make gun ownership illegal, so perhaps we should let them self select and make gun ownership illegal for Democrats.

In my head, that means someone still find it important to classify people by being Dem or Rep, so yes, left and right. That's enough to make an opinion on the subject of the thread, or your OP was crap and you backpedaled after?

Peace out.