Recent mass shootings seem planned - using controversial guns/components to push control

For the last couple years it seems that there has been a constant assualt on guns, especially the erroneously and inaccurately named "assualt rifles" or "assualt weapons". It seems that everyone was "happy" to just blame the big bad "black guns" for years and every time a mass shooting happened (even if it was as small as 2-3 people, it always was to blame the gun. They left said that they thought the only real fire arms protected under the 2nd ammendment were muzzleloaders (musket like guns from the time of the nation's founding) and they seemed to have no problem with them - never a mention about them and even said that they were fine (people on the left said this).

Well lately, especially in the last 6 mopnths or so it seems like each mass shooting (or maybe every other one) the weapons that are used all fall under some new catagory for the left to put on thier list like bump-stocks, magazine capacity, obtaining rifles through private sale - LEGALLY. Now the newest complaint is about people "making their own guns" which is when someone buys a slab of aluminum that is rough cut to a specific shape and the user has to machine/drill out the remaining material for a working weapon. depending upon how it is done and the tools available this is incredibly hard (with hand tools) and have a high quality lower receiver - which is the part of the gun that has the pistol grip, trigger mechinism, magazine bay and the part that connects the upper (barrel, bolt, etc) onto the gun. As per the BATFE the lower receiver IS the gun and is the only part which one would need a background check to buy as the rest can be purchased without any check b/c all other parts are useless w/o this lower receiver. The receiver if professionally manufactured has the serial number on it. These "build your own' are called 80% lowers usually and can be purchased anywhere from about $60 to 140 depending on the type of metal they are made of (alloy of Al).

Now I just heard that some left wing group lead by the amazing and spectacular Gabby Giffords, is going after MUZZLELOADERS! Seriously WTF. There was a guy on Tucker Carlson last night (11/16) talking about this and it was the most ridiculous interview I have EVER heard by someone who is supposed to be intelligent and a representative of the people (the guy helping Gabby). He was concerned that the muzzle loaders could be used in mass shootings and especially now since one company is starting to make one that has a suppressor built into the barrel (really awesome idea and product IMHO)His statements were so ignorant and outright stupid I can't type them and put the readers though reading them. Tucker was beside himself with amusement and disbelief (this poor guy has to deal with so many ignorant, uninformed people that he deserves some kind of national merit award IMO). The guy was also saying how devastating a mass shooting would be with a 50 caliber that any 16yr old could by w/o a background check - basically comparing it to a 50BMG!!! He also thinks a suppressor IS A SILENCER and makes the gun inaudible. Yeah, this is the type of person who is working to try to take your gun rights away. The only thing he should be in charge of is taking crayons away from toddlers who are sticking them up their nose or eating them - and he would probably get that wrong and want to ban crayons as well.




So looking back at these shootings and the progression of the guns and accessories used, it seems that there is some kind of progression of someone planning on making each item they disagree with, using them in a mass killing and then politicizing it and it seems to be happening in a more frequent rate. IMO this seems planned and staged - whether it is all fake or if the killings are in deed real, IDK, but I see a coordinated method of using all the different types of guns and accessories they want to "ban" in these shootings and I think they are not natural at all. If we see some muzzleloader shootings that that will make it 100% certain in my mind and hopefully others.

What this means is that the left is willing to kill people for their gun control (or fake some or all of the shootings and lie to everyone in the process). It also shows the left has lost any amount of credibility they may have had when it comes to being the authority in anything. If they can not get the facts right on things as simple as guns (I know 10 year olds that can name hundreds of guns, their parts (in small detail like internal workings), rifle and pistol cartridges both NATO and Warsaw Pac types, and much more - AND STATE THEM TOTALLY ACCURATELY and know how they all work together, their orgins, how they were developed, etc. That is one 10 year old that knows more than probably every single democratic official COMBINED on gun control. This alone should be means for removal of office if they are activly attacking our rights and a major industry without being informed by non-debatable FACTS. These are the same people that want us to "JUST BELIEVE THEM" on their climate change science.

Maybe if they could be honest about guns and learn about the facts and use factual terms and names, people on the right might listen to them on climate change.

The Tucker carlson show was definitely comedic and it seems much of the news is no longer serious (in the terms of having intelligent people on both sides). IDK how this can be fixed unless we start making a standardized test for ALL government jobs which I 100,000% support

If people were not allowed to stock up on assault weapons et al, then these weapons would not be used to murder people. Thta's an obvious conclusion. I fail to see why people think it ain't.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

The law says the right to bear arms, not the right to bear guns.

So, therefore it is obvious that everyone in 'murricah must carry a WMD.

Only when everyone, which includes the irresponsible and the insane, are armed with nukes will there be safety!

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Of course they were all planned..... nobody saw a gun laying in a gutter, picked it up and started shooting did they ?

Mass shootings are a retard problem.

Nothing to gain from its purpose.

originally posted by: paraphi
If people were not allowed to stock up on assault weapons et al, then these weapons would not be used to murder people. Thta's an obvious conclusion. I fail to see why people think it ain't.

By that rational, people should not be allowed to stock up on cars, or smoke, or drink, or eat unhealthy bioengineered food...

All of which cause more deaths than guns COMBINED every year.

Or are you making the distinction between fast and slow murder?

I can tell you point blank that gun control advocates are definitely ok with slow murder.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

The law says the right to bear arms, not the right to bear guns.

Don't be a "tool".....someone might use you to kill someone.

I'm sure you wouldn't want that.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Look how much unhappiness there is on social media. There are witch-hunts, calls for violence and groups constantly in conflict with other groups. People are losing their # over some of the pettiest things imaginable. Some are literally gleeful when anyone from their trigger groups suffers or gets killed.

It's zero surprise that one of the unhappy/angry ones goes out with a gun and shoots people. Some are so desensitised to their fellow humans, it's probably like opening fire on an ideal instead of a person.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Look how much unhappiness there is on social media. There are witch-hunts, calls for violence and groups constantly in conflict with other groups. People are losing their # over some of the pettiest things imaginable. Some are literally gleeful when anyone from their trigger groups suffers or gets killed.

It's zero surprise that one of the unhappy/angry ones goes out with a gun and shoots people. Some are so desensitised to their fellow humans, it's probably like opening fire on an ideal instead of a person.

Welcome to the backlash of being "connected".

I remember when my "group" was just my family and close friends.

Now there's literally EVERYBODY and ANYBODY agreeing or disagreeing with any given individual or group instantly in real time.

It that really a "good" or "bad" thing?

If you never knew the difference, I'm not really sure it's even a factor one might ponder. It's simply the way things are; the new reality that technically is all one has ever known.

Since I was fortunate enough to have experienced the difference, I'm not convinced it was such a good idea after all...I mean that. I'm not sure everyone being "connected" is a good thing. Convenient maybe, but not by any means natural, or in line with our nature as human beings. We might be overloaded with input..

Instant gratification is highly addictive and rewards our brains with feel good dopamine... what does a hundred or even a thousand+ negative opinions about another person do to that person? Especially a mentally unstable person?

A lot of us just let it roll off our backs...for others, not so much.

It would be an interesting study nevertheless.

a reply to: EternalShadow

God yeah, it's a toothpaste back in the tube or Pandora's Box situation, isn't it? We're stuck with social media with all its goods and all its evils.

Instant gratification is highly addictive and rewards our brains with feel good dopamine... what does a hundred or even a thousand+ negative opinions about another person do to that person? Especially a mentally unstable person?

It's a bit scary. Plus we're currently rewiring the brains of our two year olds as they develop using tablets to play games on and watch YT videos. We're living through the growing pains of a new era of human consciousness imho.

The U.N. wants the entire world disarmed so we are easier to control.

They certainly aren’t above a few psyops to further their agenda.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I'm curious as to why this couldn't have been appended to one of the many gun/bump stock threads already doing the rounds on ATS?

meh

You gun nuts have been singing this same song after every shooting for at least a decade.

You still have your guns. Relax.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

For the last couple years it seems that there has been a constant assualt on guns, especially the erroneously and inaccurately named "assualt rifles" or "assualt weapons". It seems that everyone was "happy" to just blame the big bad "black guns" for years and every time a mass shooting happened (even if it was as small as 2-3 people, it always was to blame the gun.

They been doing this since way back. Just a perspective from an older shooter, collector...

Career politicians like Feinstein show up every time there is a mass killing calling for more gun control. Shes been doing that for decades. Got her start in SF when Harvey Milk shot the Mayor, did it again when Reagan got shot.

They come out of the woodwork and call for general bans of certain arms, magazines, conversions, parts, ammunition, over and over.

Then 'settle' for little 'gains' that 'infringe' on second amendment rights. The little tiny 'victories' add up over the years. My home state of Ca has radically changed, arms wise.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof


Embedding the YouTube video. Hope you don't mind.

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof

If they can not get the facts right on things as simple as guns (I know 10 year olds that can name hundreds of guns, their parts (in small detail like internal workings), rifle and pistol cartridges both NATO and Warsaw Pac types, and much more - AND STATE THEM TOTALLY ACCURATELY and know how they all work together, their orgins, how they were developed, etc. That is one 10 year old that knows more than probably every single democratic official COMBINED on gun control.

It's funny, we've been hearing a lot recently from a lot of Right leaning gun advocates being very vocal about those they presume to be on the left, holding all gun nuts to account for the actions of a few (though most of us don't, most of us blame how widely available guns are, anyway, I digress) and here you are holding all "Lefties" to account for one guy you saw on the idiot box.

I couldn't make out if the really was a post about recent shootings being left wing plots to change firearm laws or a big ol' rant about the guy you saw on Tucker Carlson, it's 50/50...

If the Second Amendment were as powerful as it should be, I ought to be able to walk into a federal court house armed with an M240 or an FN GAU-21... if I were rich enough.

2nd amendment not only to counter government control, but its armaments as well.



Training, practice, practical application... the trifecta of a proper conceal carry citizen.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

The law says the right to bear arms, not the right to bear guns.

So, therefore it is obvious that everyone in 'murricah must carry a WMD.

Only when everyone, which includes the irresponsible and the insane, are armed with nukes will there be safety!

Wait whats a bear gun? I dont recall the second amendment giving us bear guns? Well hunting bear i like touse Marlin Model 1895 Guide Gun! Yes everyone should have one but not sure if its a bear gun though.

originally posted by: chr0naut

The law says the right to bear arms, not the right to bear guns.

Americans be like...



'mon the bears!!!

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

In the Vegas case, the components used were to maximize casualties, it had zero to do with gun control, period.

originally posted by: EternalShadow
By that rational, people should not be allowed to stock up on cars, or smoke, or drink, or eat unhealthy bioengineered food...

No, that's a silly parallel. The OP is about guns, not the fact that people drive cars. It's the type of constipated argument that prevents meaningful discussion and action to tackle the ability to commit mass murder easily.