H.R. 34: The Safe Students Act

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: WeRpeons


Oh, and for what it’s worth: I don’t even own an AR platform.

You should, because they're great for hunting.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

More silliness: The right isn't to only own handguns or hunting rifles, the right is to keep and bear arms (a right that "shall not be infringed"), not just specific arms that people who don't own firearms but pretend that they know what they're talking about say you should own based on their own subjective opinions on the topic.

Really? I doubt our forefathers could have foreseen a rifle capable of being fitted with a magazine and firing 30 bullets or more in succession. In addition, the 2nd amendment was created so that the "states could form militias or armies to destroy insurrections or slave rebellions because the federal government had no standing military for a long time." Some parts of our constitution have clearly become outdated. The second amendment was written for issues relevant to the late 1700's not with today's unforeseen technology. So the idea of bearing arms shouldn't have limitations? There's currently a company who creates flame throwers that want to make them legal to purchase. Weapons will evolve and become even more sophisticated and deadly over time! Where do you draw the line? We don't live in a perfect world where evil and violence don't exist! Let's not be so ignorant to the fact that a civilized society follows parts of a document that have become outdated. It's why some parts or our constitution have been amended over the years.

We're already having conflicts with our privacy rights! With social media, e-mails, cell phones, the internet, digital cameras and CGI, our forefathers couldn't have dreamed how today's communication and digital technology could impact the constitution's privacy rights!

a reply to: WeRpeons

Puckle gun 1718, approximately 10 rounds a minute, while nothing really equal to modern rapid fire guns was around till the mid 1860's to say the founding fathers could not conceive of the idea of a rapid fire gun floats somewhere between ignorance and an outright lie.


Also your interpretation of the 2nd is really moot since the supreme court disagrees with you.

double

a reply to: Shamrock6

You're perspective on guns will always be slanted toward the rights of gun owners. I or nobody else will be able to change your perspective. It's exactly the same with Trump supporters. I don't need to point out the glaring and proven lies of this president, but supporters will ignore those glaring problems with this president.

I don't and many others don't believe in owning a gun for the simple reason we can't accept the thought of taking the life of an animal let alone risking the chance a gun in the wrong hands (child, criminal, suicidal depressed individuals) would cause a life to be accidentally or intentionally taken.

My posts in your opinion are ignorant because your gun rights perspective are ignoring and deflecting facts. I can understand the need for hunting to control animal population. I can also understand people owning a handgun for protection. However, no matter how much you support something, you can't ignore blatant wrongs and justifying it to suit your selfish wants.

As far as hunting is concerned, the quote from hunters that I quoted explained clearly that hunting with an automatic rifle takes away from the hunting experience. All I was trying to show is not all gun owners feel the same way about hunting with an AR-15, and according to these hunters it wasn't a necessity. So my question is, if this gun is not a necessity to hunt, why would a gun owner who has a concern for human lives, support having this rifle available to the public?

We can compare this issue with the motorcycle helmet law in my state. Motorcyclists lobbied our state government to repeal the law that forced motorcyclists to wear helmets. They succeeded in doing just that. Since the law was repealed,
motorcycle deaths have increased by more than 60%! So there is a definite relationship when laws are created to protect lives. However, in the case of motorcyclists, it's their choice and it's THEIR LIVES! Motorcyclists not wearing a helmet is not creating a threat to the lives of other motorists but themselves. They have a choice to take that risk!

When we want the truth in matters, we don't turn to friends and like minded individuals. We look outside for confirmation on how we're thinking and acting is right or wrong. None of you gun right owners ever answered the simple question I asked, "would you HONESTLY support the legalization of the AR-15 if your son, daughter or loved one was part of this mass shooting?" Can you justify allowing anyone who is mentally ill, has a criminal record, has had a dishonorable discharge from the military or has posted hateful and disturbing texts on Facebook or Twitter be allowed to own a gun?" Keep in mind, Facebook or Twitter is a public forum, people have lost their jobs for posting questionable responses on issues.

As far as me pasting my "cute" sources (facts are better than opinions), I try to follow the ATS rules and back-up my beliefs from sources. I have a habit of posting long replies. The reason is I don't feel a majority of the time, depending on the subject matter, I can thoroughly back-up my opinion with one line or paragraph. After all, doesn't ATS state...make your replies count? Just saying...

a reply to: WeRpeons

As far as hunting is concerned, the quote from hunters that I quoted explained clearly that hunting with an automatic rifle takes away from the hunting experience.

I would love to see this automatic weapon used for hunting, never met an actual hunter that had a class three firearms liscense.

I am not even certain its legal to hunt with a full auto weapon, if you are talking about semi-automatic weapons then ignore what I said.

To have a real dialogue with gun owners you have to use the terminology correctly because there is a world of difference between the two legally speaking.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: WeRpeons

As far as hunting is concerned, the quote from hunters that I quoted explained clearly that hunting with an automatic rifle takes away from the hunting experience.

I would love to see this automatic weapon used for hunting, never met an actual hunter that had a class three firearms liscense.

I am not even certain its legal to hunt with a full auto weapon, if you are talking about semi-automatic weapons then ignore what I said.

To have a real dialogue with gun owners you have to use the terminology correctly because there is a world of difference between the two legally speaking.

Just another example of a gun grabber (werpeons) not knowing what they’re talking about and appealing to emotion, not fact. I was going to respond to his/her latest diatribe paragraph by paragraph, but there is really no point for someone who hasn’t a clue about weapon nomenclature.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Puckle gun 1718, approximately 10 rounds a minute, while nothing really equal to modern rapid fire guns was around till the mid 1860's to say the founding fathers could not conceive of the idea of a rapid fire gun floats somewhere between ignorance and an outright lie.

Ten rounds a minute is a far cry from 800 rounds a minute or 13.3 rounds per second! The second Amendment was ratified in 1791. Really, if someone told you back in 1791 we would have a rifle that could shoot 800 rounds a minute, they would have just shrugged their shoulders? Let alone, back in that time they didn't have mass shootings of innocent people several times a year, lol. So who is really ignorant here and engaging in outright lies?

I don't know if you're a Trump supporter, but it seems like gun owners usually are. It seems to me, you're trying to justify the right of gun owners when your example is flawed. You must be following a page out of Trump's game plan book. I hope you're not a Trump supporter, because for someone who is ready to insinuate someone of ignorance and outright lies, the last person doing so should be a Trump supporter.

I think we're beating a dead horse on this gun issue. In the end, we can debate this issue until the cows come home. The only people who have any power to change the current gun laws or anything else for that matter is our President and legislatures. With that as a reality, I won't hold my breath. As long as there's money in politics from special interests, the voice of the majority will never be heard. If we want the voice of the people to be truly heard, put issues that affect the majority of Americans on the ballot!

Why should we have a minority decide what's right for the majority?

a reply to: WeRpeons


Nope mate, I did not vote trump and will not vote trump next election, I am not trying to justify anything because I do not have to, the law and the constitution, and statistics support my side of the argument.

but your comments are badly flawed, an AR-15 cannot shoot 800 rounds a minute without serious modification, which to maintain legality would probably require a class 3 firearms license which is a royal pain to maintain. (also rather than modify it which relies on a gun smith if I had the license I would just buy an automatic, easier and less hassle once you have the license.)

I think you have bad information, and without both sides talking about the same thing how can we hope to reach a comprimise when I am talking about a semi-automatic rifle, and the left is talking about full auto rifles.

They are both leggally, and mechanically different.

a reply to: WeRpeons

I’m sorry, I thought we were talking about gun control, not your opinion on the truthfulness of Trump. I stopped paying attention once you started going all over the map to try and make a point.

Ah well.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Really?

"Really really." -- Shrek

I doubt our forefathers could have foreseen a rifle capable of being fitted with a magazine and firing 30 bullets or more in succession.

Well, that fails, because weapons capable of shooting many rounds without needing immediately reloaded between shots exists when they were alive.

Now is your concern one that mattered to the "why" behind the second amendment.

In addition, the 2nd amendment was created so that the "states could form militias or armies to destroy insurrections or slave rebellions because the federal government had no standing military for a long time."

Don't quote something to which you don't link or cite.

As for the "why" behind the 2nd Amendment, there are many quotes from the actual Founding Fathers that attest to something different than your un-cited quote.

Some parts of our constitution have clearly become outdated. The second amendment was written for issues relevant to the late 1700's not with today's unforeseen technology.

Again, you're just being silly thinking that the Founding Fathers didn't ponder the future repercussions of such a right. And again, weapons of mass casualties existed at the time that they wrote it. If they really wanted to limit the types of arms available, they would have done so--instead, they didn't, and then doubled down on saying that the right "shall not be infringed."

Don't sell them short, just because you want talking points that sound plausible at face value but fail when you actually have an understanding of the history of the 2nd Amendment.

So the idea of bearing arms shouldn't have limitations?

If you want limitations, do it the right way and call a constitutional convention over the issue and see if a vast majority of Congress and the States agree with you.

Sure, there should be some very minor limitations on gun ownership, and I think that some of what stops one from purchasing a firearm through the NICS system are plenty.

There's currently a company who creates flame throwers that want to make them legal to purchase. Weapons will evolve and become even more sophisticated and deadly over time! Where do you draw the line?

We have laws against using them to harm other people, or even having them in certain places. If people disregard those laws, you're really trying to tell me that more laws will stop things?

Production of fully-automatic firearms (and unlicensed possession and purchase) is currently illegal, yet any competent gunsmith can turn a semi-auto into a fully-auto firearm very quickly. If criminals want things, they will find a way. I can turn a propane tank into a flamethrower with items I can legally purchase at Home Depot. Laws mean nothing, and if things get outlawed and someone wants one bad enough, they will find a way. Laws only affect law-abiding people.

We don't live in a perfect world where evil and violence don't exist! Let's not be so ignorant to the fact that a civilized society follows parts of a document that have become outdated. It's why some parts or our constitution have been amended over the years.

Well, for one, whether you like it or not, the American experiment has been highly successful since the inception of what you call an outdated document.

But like I said before, petition for a constitutional convention and see if everyone agrees with your talking-points opinion on the matter.

We're already having conflicts with our privacy rights! With social media, e-mails, cell phones, the internet, digital cameras and CGI, our forefathers couldn't have dreamed how today's communication and digital technology could impact the constitution's privacy rights!

Actually, any violation of the 4th Amendment by the government is exactly that--a violation. But everything that you just cited are privileges, not rights (all of the social media and electronic things). The difference is that firearms, other than maybe rate of fire, have remained basically the same--it's a body with a trigger and firing mechanism that causes an amount of gun powder (or similar explosive) to ignite and send a projectile downrange.

We're not talking about atomic bombs, here, we're talking about firearms that, yes, are more efficient than those used in the revolutionary war, but are no less effective at mass killing than, say...well, then these weapons that were around during the Revolutionary War times (you know, before the time that the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified): Explosive bombs, hand grenades, howitzers, canister and case shot (particularly nasty), and other things designed for mass casualties.

Here, read through some of the types of explosives and projectiles available at the time of the American Revolution. If you seriously think that some of the greatest minds of the time, some of whom fought with or alongside these weapons, couldn't imagine that, in the future, guns may be more lethal and easier to fire, then you're selling the Founding Fathers way short.

I agree that electronics may not be something that could have been envisioned, but firearms are what we're talking about here, and your argument falls way short on merit in that regard.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You've clearly made your point that you feel semi-automatic rifles, bump stocks, and lenient gun laws are more important than human lives! I hope for your sake and many other gun supporters who are supporting these chosen weapons of mass murder, are never put in the same terrifying situation these young people and many others before them have had to endure. What other country deals with an epidemic of school shootings using the same weapon of choice? Research those countries who have less gun violence and it's plain as day it's because they have tougher gun control laws or ban guns altogether. But hey, you have a 200 year-old document that protects that right! A document where our founders had no crystal ball or psychic powers to gaze into the future to see how their choice of words would impact societies future. Our founding fathers were not "God's" for pete's sake! Just like law makers today could never have imagined the impact of cell phones, computers, social media, and digital CGI, on our society today! Who knows what form of hand-held mass weaponry will be developed in the not so distant future? Life keeps on evolving. We certainly can't compare 18th century weapons and communication technology with the current 21st Century.

You keep saying my arguments on gun control is silly and ignorant, yet you and others keep trying to defend your stance with me. If my argument doesn't have any merit, why debate the issue with me? Sometimes the truth hurts. Like I said in my last post, I don't expect to change your mind and other gun supporters. This issue is in the hands of our legislatures, and their track record for listening to the majority of Americans and preserving American lives falls on deaf ears.

Take away money in politics like NRA donations and Super PAC's and I can guarantee we would have representatives that would start listening and become more accountable to the "people" they serve. When organizations can contribute thousands and millions of dollar to our representatives campaigns, do you honestly think it doesn't change their opinion on an issue?

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You've clearly made your point that you feel semi-automatic rifles, bump stocks, and lenient gun laws are more important than human lives! I hope for your sake and many other gun supporters who are supporting these chosen weapons of mass murder, are never put in the same terrifying situation these young people and many others before them have had to endure.

Thank you for your well wishes and your continued misconstruing and spinning of my comments. I see that demonizing others to try to help bolster your ideology is more important than understanding a comment.

You have a wonderful day.