yeah...tell that to the families of the innocent victims

If I was in public office, and I had taken an oath to serve the public, then my response would be easy, and I think you know that. I would tell them that I am honor bound to try and advocate for policies that make these attacks as difficult as possible to execute, within the limits of the Constitution and common sense. Does anyone really think that's where we are?

I've never heard a car accident victim, advocate for getting rid of cars. Not once, ever.

What you tell the victims of car accidents, is that you'll try to learn from what happened, to see if anything can be improved (safety engineering, speed limits, etc). It's the same principle here with guns.

and the only way to have stopped this attack would be to ban people from legally owning firearms(or maybe install metal detectors and guards in hotel lobbies)...that's your argument...if this guy got them flying under the radar and created the havoc that he did, then anyone could...that's the obvious argument...anything else is a rhetorical little bandaid on a big wound

that's because they understand it's the vehicle operator(save mechanical issues) ...and not the vehicle in most cases

You are mentioning that velocity thing again. High velocity rounds are very suitable for hunting, preferred in many cases. Certainly important for target shooting and accuracy.

Hopefully that remains the case.

The left politicizes the tragedy and the right politicizes that the left politicized the tragedy.


There is a gun problem. Particularly the youth and gang violence and suicides - where most of the death happens. Other things like kid's gaining access to guns should also be better adressed (safe storage, separate ammo storage, etc)

They might not come to take the guns because it has been well established that they won't be given up easily, nor without a fight. But this has not stopped politicians from saying there should be a blanket ban and confiscation. And from politicians that have conducted partial bans it is not a big leap to complete bands. Some partial bans like like for imminent mental health concerns or DV instances which I would be OK with if it were not for the real consideration that they would not stop their.

Let me try again to explain my opinion. A bump stock modification is a "workaround" to circumvent the law on automatics. It allows the weapon to "mimic" full auto. I think even the gun rights side will be considering some "concessions" when it comes to this accessory.

I think the other 42 states should consider a ban on bump stocks, I have no problem with that. However, it probably won't prevent another mass shooting of innocent people. I also feel that this maniac had the means to apply for and buy a legitimate full auto rifle if he had the time and qualifications but maybe he he just went the bump stock route because it was easier.
They might be fun to shoot at a pumpkin shoot or something , but not practical for an everyday person.



As far as fingerprint reading on guns, hogwash. First put breathalizers in every car, truck or bus in the country before that lamebrain idea.

"the only way to have stopped this attack would be to..."

You're doing what too many (in my opinion) people on my side do, in regards to this question. I concede that there is no constitutional way to prevent all of these attacks from occurring. You are saying, therefore, let's not do anything. Why is it all or nothing?

What if we can make the attacks harder to pull off, and what if we can reduce the likely body count, when attacks do take place? For sh*ts and giggles, what if bump stocks were banned from the get go? Obviously, this guy could have loaded his room with semi autos and gone to town. But do you think it's likely, that if he was limited to true semi auto, that he would not have been able to shoot 600 people?

If someone proposes gun control, I don't think it's a valid rebuttal to point out that any given proposal, will not be a 100% guarantee of 0 future attacks. The minimum requirement for a proposal to be worthwhile, shouldn't be a guarantee of perfect results. If a proposal makes things better (but not perfect), isn't that maybe a good thing?

We have laws that prohibit murder. But people still murder each other. So using your logic, let's do away with those laws?

I honestly can't follow your logic

And now we have a republican senator saying that the victims should have - "gotten small" to not get shot.

Wtf???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know. That's what makes me sad.

Bump stocks allow you to shoot more rounds per minute, which, in some cases, increase the expected deaths.

"how many bullets could he fire from semi"

Too many. But, not as many as he could fire from what is essentially full auto.

Scott, let's say your family is in a crowd (let's say in a theater), and a gunman is walking in, preparing to shoot up the area. He has an AR-15. He asks you on his way in, if he should use the bump stock or not, he is going to let you decide. Are you going to say "it makes no difference"? Or are you going to say "don't use the bump stock"?

I will quote myself from a little earlier

"ok, I'm for that...ban bump stocks..."

the windmills are taking a beating...

Not quite as WTF as the CBS VP that said the victims didn't deserve sympathy. Just another D upset over the election still.

At least "get small" is sound advice, albeit terribly obvious and damn near not feasible in a run for your life scenario.

And to balance the hate- Carl Paladino, a western New York builder, one-time Republican candidate for governor of New York and political ally of President-elect Donald J. Trump, came under fire on Friday for racially offensive comments about President Obama and the first lady, who Mr. Paladino said should be “let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe.”

Mr. Paladino’s comments were published in Artvoice, a weekly Buffalo newspaper. They came in response to an open-ended feature in which local figures were asked about their hopes for 2017.

“Obama catches mad cow disease after being caught having relations with a Herford,” said Mr. Paladino, who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2010, making an apparent reference to the Hereford cattle breed. He said he hoped the disease killed the president.

Asked what he most wanted to see “go away” in the new year, Mr. Paladino — who has a reputation in New York political and business circles for speaking in an unfiltered manner reminiscent of Mr. Trump’s — answered, “Michelle Obama.”


“I’d like her to return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla,” he said.

Paul...wasn't that like a year ago?...surely you can find something contemporary

Just an easy one to google.

If I was Maxie the gorilla I'd find that offensive too. The poor thing. But seeing as how this has nothing to do with the OP lets try to stay on topic ok?

And on that we agree 100%. That would constitute animal cruelty.

classy

:thanks:

Why is it when we have a terrorist event in United States we expect the federal government to do something ( travel ban) but when we have a mass shooting ( not a Muslim) we don't want The government to do anything.. it's perplexing. But let's be honest Bump stocks and new discussion on silencers or suppressors it's all a game to make more revenue for the gun companies. Gun companies are actually marketing system suppressors to help reduce hearing loss . And I believe stocks in gun companies went up after the shooting. Does anyone know why electronic gun registration is not allowed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again I'm not a gun owner currently, but I guess I'm curious why a guy legally (I assume) amassing such a large arsenal of weapons is automatically flagged as someone maybe law enforcement should be looking at?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe they did, but he didn't do anything wrong until that night.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Without a law authorizing them to do so I don't think they would be doing it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the mass shooters that you refer to (not Muslim) predominantly came from certain other countries, the federal government could impose a travel ban from those countries. But if the mass shooters live in the State, the federal government should defer to that State's legal system.

BTW, you first referred to the "federal" government being expected to do something, then in comparing mass shooting to terrorism you eliminated the "federal" and just referred to government. We have been conditioned by the Progressive trend in politics to merge the two--federal government and government being the same thing. The Progressive mindset is that government SHOULD be centralized. That government and federal government should be the same thing. That the federal government (government) should be involved in all things that influence our lives.

Travel bans from other countries, constitutionally, should be the federal government's responsibility. Mass shootings in Nevada, which don't involve foreign influence, should be the responsibility of Nevada. It may be "perplexing" to you why those concerned about the survival of the Constitution as the actual "law of the land" make a distinction between responsibilities of various levels of government, and that "government" doesn't automatically mean "federal" government. But the distinction should be obvious to those who believe that a federation is preferable to a monolithic State.

What do silencers / suppressors have to do with the price of heroine in Central Falls? You know the benefits of them. The real benefits - not the crap the talking heads spew.

I'm OK with banning bump stocks - different subject

So the federal government requires us to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. States require us to buy auto insurance. But the insurance against government tyranny that was given to us free of monetary charge by the Founders is "just a pile of bull#^&#^&#^&#^&."

Having health insurance doesn't prevent illness. It helps us to more physically and financially be able to survive illness and return to good health. Auto insurance does not prevent accidents. It makes it more possible to financially survive the misuse of autos and maintain our use of them. The Second Amendment is our freedom insurance policy. It does not prevent the misuse of weapons. It makes it possible to resist an armed government which misuses its weapons to strip us of our unalienable rights--to insure that we do not lose our liberties.

No doubt to many of us now, that sounds quaint. A nice, old fashioned sentiment that is no longer relevant, a historical conceit. But is there some evidence that we should not have any fear of an overreaching government? Or worse, that our government should not fear its citizens? Is a government which is confident that its citizens have been fully pacified through its subjugation of the educational system, its transformation of the political system including the founding structure, its massive regulation of the economy, its collusion with the media, its incremental transfer to itself of powers from the people and their local and State governments . . . is such a government truly not to be feared?

Is there some evidence that we actually no longer need the rights and liberties that the Constitution guarantied to us? Have we been persuaded that we no longer need the insurance policy, no longer need outdated notions such as freedom, liberty, rights?

Well, on reflection, we are as, a society, consumed with the notion of rights. But not some ethereal notion of unalienable ones. We are perfectly satisfied with provided rights rather than inherent ones. What we inherit we are responsible for. It is up to us to protect inherent rights. The rights given to us by a government which we do not fear are its responsibility to decide and dispense. Some may have such rights. Others may not. We become divided by "rights." We don't all have the same old unalienable rights. Just the ones given to us by the benevolent government we trust, do not fear, and which does not fear us. Some we have in common. Others are special to preferred or protected groups. They can be more a matter of enforcement rather than codification. "Gays" can force a baker to bake a "gay" cake. But no one can force a baker to make a chartreuse cake. Those who love the color chartreuse have not been given the right by government to demand chartreuse. Of course, the baker no longer has the unalienable right to his property. Those who make x dollars do not have the right to pay the same tax rate as those who make y dollars. Those who score higher test rates may not have the right to enter a university over someone who scores lower test rates. Certain groups need special rights to get a leg up. Some have the right to say certain words, while the use of those words by others are considered hate speech. Some are granted free speech at publicly supported schools, others can claim free speech to shout down, without prosecution, those they disagree with. And on and on and on.

The notion that the world we presently live in should cause us to have no reasonable fear of government tyranny is not based on actual evidence, historical or otherwise. But the greatest threat to the freedom we have inherited is not the government, rather it is our complacency. Our willingness to constantly allow the government to assume the responsibilities that rightly belong to us as individuals, and our ignorance of how economies work (or don't), and the dangers of all-powerful centralization (politically and commercially).

The actual evidence, if rightly looked at, is that discarding the framework that guaranties us individual freedom, with its insurance policies (the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment), and leaving our lives and sacred honor in the hands and ever changing whims of a centralized and fairly unlimited bureaucracy is "just a pile of bull#^&#^&#^&#^&."

trying to go around the Law and promoting a false Narrative NRA and gun makers word games

Like Bump stock simulate rapid Fire their not making gun full Auto if your in denial ... ATF noted that according to Slide Fire, the device “is intended to assist persons whose hands have limited mobility to ‘bump-fire’ an AR-15 type rifle.”

https://youtu.be/x0f7OCnrrpkor Please note his trigger finger not moving and if someone think thats not Automatic fire they shouldn't own a gun


suppressors-good-for-our-hearing yea thats why they are made i thought that was what ear plug were for?


https://www.nraila.org/articles/2011...or-our-hearing

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf...ses-explained/

a good read another topic that Americas are un aware on how the ability to track weapons have been blocked by our elected officials and Law paid for and written by lobbyist