[detbuch]

QUOTE=Got Stripers;1131128]I'll go, I"m sure others like me were thinking it would only be a short time until another (yeah non Muslim, non radicalized) person with a life experience or two recent or past, that would push him or her over the edge. And of course the lucky recipients of their anger are unfortunate that they have access to an arsenal of assault type rifles and even without the advantages of the bump stocks that did so much damage in Vegas, they easily and quickly kill dozens or more.

Originally Posted by detbuch:

I think that environmentalists should prefer mass killings rather than one-at-a-time types. Overpopulation leads to human pollution of the planet. We need more of those human cleansing incidents and conditions--mass killings, abortions, gay marriage, gender displacements, war/pestilence/famine/and hunger, More ideologies like Islam, and restrictive laws to keep us controlled and in place, in order to reduce the population and keep it down.

Assault weapons should be considered a good thing.

Wow, not much I can say to that, I'm sure the mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters of the children killed in this latest AR carnage will find comfort in your empathy. I hope you don't loose the other screws holding you together, I also hope that you too are armed to the teeth, because those are some scary and evil sentiments. Also for one who has such a fear of big government, I'd suggest you better watch what you type, homeland security is looking for text just like that; no doubt those statements fits the profile of many that might be on their radar.

Uuhhh . . . my post was, like . . . sarcasm. With a bit of a poke at some greeny contradiction. I apologize if I mislead you. On the other hand, your responses are interesting. A bit myopic, but interesting.

Like I said in one of the other threads, I'd be worried about someone just like anyone on this board with access to these types of weapons, with a life changing experience putting them in a very dark place with a need to vent that anger.

Maybe you should take some pills to help you with your anxiety issue.

We legislate the amount of fertilizer you can buy, we legislate seat belt laws, the amount of alcohol you can legally have in order to drive, all to save a life or two; I think it's time to legislate some sensible gun laws to save thousands every year.


Minor problem is, unlike fertilizer, seatbelts, and alcohol, there is this little thing relating to guns referred to as the Second Amendment. I realize that you believe we should get "sensible" about that Amendment, but that would take another Amendment.

As I said "The only gun law, sensible or not, that would save thousands of lives a year would be to outlaw, worldwide, the production of guns. Would be kind of hard to enforce without the use of guns. But, the only gun law able to stop thousands or single digits of deaths is to eliminate the existence of guns. That would, without a need for further legislation, disarm everyone including, and especially, all governments." Good luck with that.


Don't read more into what I'm suggesting, I have no issues with handguns, hunting rifles, shotguns or any other legally purchased firearm in the pursuit of what every warm blooded man or women loves to do. I too loved hunting back when I was younger, but aside from fueling a shortage of testosterone, helping someone deal with a little big man issue or making someone like you with such a dismal view of the future feel more secure; what purpose does the AR assault weapon serve?


Again, it is unfortunate for your sentiments that the 2A was not about hunting or fueling a shortage of testosterone. Actually, AR assault TYPE weapons would be more effective in helping to accomplish what the 2A is about than the other toys with which you have no issue. Those toys, BTW, kill "thousands" more in this country than the AR does. Still don't understand why there is less of an emotional outrage to those far greater numbers killed than by the AR style guns. But it's your choice about what you get outraged.

Our founding fathers just finished a bloody war, against what they viewed as a tyrannical government, which was the reason they penned 27 words to insure they could form a militia and have the arms to do so. Does anyone really see any circumstance in our lifetime or your kids, where we need to take up arms against our own government?

The 2A is a preventative measure which helps to make sure that we don't have to fight our own government. That's the whole point of it. To ensure government doesn't remove itself from the bonds the Founders placed it. Before the British government tried to change things, the colonists also thought, as you do, that they were in a place where it didn't seem necessary to defend against government tyranny. So they had to scramble to fight against it when it showed up. They learned the hard way the need of prevention, rather than waiting for disaster to occur in order to mobilize against it. You know . . . that ounce of prevention thingy.

Again, while we are witnessing a lot of scary stuff, I feel sorry that you have such a depressing view of where our government is or could become.

No need to feel sorry for me. I'm not depressed. I accept reality. And I'm not scared as you seem to be about "scary stuff." Maybe I should feel sorry for you that you view scary stuff. And aren't you one of those who keep telling us how bad it is having Trump as President? About what dangers and depressing things we might be facing because of that? Hmmm . . . pot /kettle syndrome.

Do you really think one leader or some government/military conspiracy to take total control is in the cards, boy how do you sleep at night?


I am less concerned about that than you seem to be of Trump, and unreasonable conservatives.

And if you do and the possibility that the military in it's entirety will actually sign on (tin foil hat tipped here), do you think the small percentage of AR armed civilians are going to stop that?

I've already spoken to the military takeover thing. Don't feel like doing it over and over. If anything, at least at this time, I think the military may be a wall against the destruction of the Constitution. On my "side" more than yours.


Also consider their time and place, where aside from a cannon position from a fort or ship, they were all basically playing on the same single shot playing field.

So when Gatling guns were created for military use, what happened to the playing field?

Imagine your a responsible father or grandfather and your AR's are properly locked away and safe from all.....or so you thought. Like many parents, we are sometimes blindsided by finding out what some of our teens or young sons and daughters are dealing with, be it bullying, drugs, rape, PTSD; you pick a life changing emotional experience. Imagine getting the call at work from the FBI wanting to talk to you, asking you how your son or daughter had access (locks aren't a guarantee) to your AR rifles, then asking if you have seen the news?

Be safe and check your locks boys.
Most of the bad stuff you talk about, to the extent that it can be prevented by government, is avoidable to the greatest extent under dictatorial governments.

Oh, so now we can imagine some possibility--as long as it isn't about stuff like tyranny, dictatorial government, all that nonsense that just can't happen because it just can't.

Again I feel sorry for you and your view of where our government and society is, must be tough on you to see where your kids and grand-kids are in a couple decades.

Again, you needn't feel sorry for me. I am happy, and very much so, in that I don't need your sympathy, nor anything else from you. The only concern I have about you is that you'll vote for someone who wants to "help" me. If I thought it would matter, I'd ask you to consider what a rare thing our Constitution with its checks and balances is, and to have that always be your concern when you vote. But I understand why you consider that thinking a relic of the past.

Do I like our government today, not in the least, but I'm not looking at the glass half empty. We need change and I'm 110% convinced term limits is the exact change needed, but if that happens; I'd suggest to you the interpretation of the 2nd amendment will likely change to a more realistic one in light of our time and place and not one living in the past like you.

It is possible not to appreciate the past. And to forget it. But it is the only thing you can live in. Everything we've just discussed is now in the past. The future cannot exist. Once "it" appears it is past. The present is so fleeting that it takes the past to realize what it is. I suspect death could be that way. It could be too instantaneous to recognize. And death's future may be so empty that life, that ever present past, cannot be remembered.

So the past is our only teacher. If we do not learn from it, we are truly ignorant.


Changing interpretations of an idea is not "realistic." It is the erasure of the idea. A replacement with another idea, not merely another interpretation of it. I'd suggest right back at ya that interpreting the 2A to mean something other than what it has really meant (is reality realistic?) is actually eliminating it. Same goes for the Constitution as a whole. There is no need to suffer under the illusion of maintaining, and abiding by, the Constitution if you don't believe it is "realistic." I'd suggest to you that what you suggest is its illimination. It's alright, actually honest, to admit that. Otherwise your living an illusion, not realistically.

And, BTW, term limits has to be approved by those who will have to limit their terms. Is it "realistic" to expect that to happen? And if it did, how would that preserve the Constitution? And why would that be an assurance that you would get a government that you like?