So what fear mongering tactic results from last night's shooting?

[Green P1]

There can and should be stricter gun laws without "taking away people's gun", like alcohol laws don't have to take away all our booze. I love guns.... Hell my dad makes a good portion of his income shooting shotguns(Trap shooting) but the fact that we can't even discuss gun laws without all of the constitutional indignation is beyond ridiculous.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Green P1

[UNT90]

There can and should be stricter gun laws without "taking away people's guns.". Much like alcohol laws don't have to take away all our booze. I love guns.... Hell my dad makes a good part of his income shooting shotguns(Trap shooting) but the idea that we can't even discuss gun laws without constitutional indignation is beyond ridiculous.

And the idea that certain members who would completely take away our rights to own guns if they could, are using this tragedy to forward their political agenda is beyond ridiculous.

Really not the time.

[Green P1]

And the idea that certain members who would completely take away our rights to own guns if they could, are using this tragedy to forward their political agenda is beyond ridiculous.

Really not the time.

If tragedy doesn't spur the discussion of change then what does? The buzz words of political agenda are useless. If we're going to sit here and bemoan people furthering their political agenda then change on either side is impossible.

[UNT90]

If tragedy doesn't spur the discussion of change then what does? The buzz words of political agenda are useless. If we're going to sit here and bemoan people furthering their political agenda then change on either side is impossible.

The only public figures wanting to discuss this now are those looking to take advantage of a tragedy to drive their own agenda. Decisions made while emotional are usually NEVER good decisions.

While still emotional, maybe we should discuss banning batman movies and violent video games?

[forevereagle]

If tragedy doesn't spur the discussion of change then what does? The buzz words of political agenda are useless. If we're going to sit here and bemoan people furthering their political agenda then change on either side is impossible.

When has an argument ever been won on GMG?

[FirefightnRick]

Speed limits, phone call/text laws while driving, intoxication levels while driving...all of these laws have evolved in the wake of tragic accidents. Are there still accidents? Sure. Are there probably fewer than there would be if it were legal to do 95 with an old-fashioned in one hand while sexting a Brazilian hooker? Gonna lean toward yes.

Yet the thought of any implementation of gun control is somehow only an invasion of constitutional rights after a mass-shooting?

Discussing gun laws after a tragedy involving guns isn't pushing any sort of agenda. It's common sense.

I agree, and don't want to dismiss your point, to me we already have gun control laws, probably more now than ever before, and most surely the greatest data base used to keep up with sales and ownership.

I'm just pointing out another interesting point, in regards to knee jerking, and it happens on both sides of every issue, that as bad as this tragedy is, every day it's compounded on U.S. Highways and is rarely even discussed.

It's just a pet peeve of mine because of my profession and the shit I've seen the past 17 years. Smell the combination of fuel, oil, battery acid, transmission fluid and blood, add the screams and other sounds of misery long enough and it tends to stick with you a bit.

I would hope that if gun control now becomes a major talking point that we first get this current administration to clear up the facts of their lack of it pertaining to "Fast And Furious".

Rick

Edited July 21, 2012 by FirefightnRick

[UNTflyer]

the fact that we can't even discuss gun laws without all of the constitutional indignation is beyond ridiculous.

Have a discussion on limiting free speech, or free press, or free religion, or the right against self-incrimination... any discussion of limiting a constitutional right is going to invoke such indignation.

Also, the responsibility of the media to accurately report the facts was thrown out the window when Cronkite retired. The news keeps reporting that this guy had an "assault weapon." The civilian AR-15 is not an assault weapon.

Pile on the boner committed by ABC accusing the guy of being a Tea Party member (which turned out not to be true) and their lack of reporting the more convincing evidence that this kid was involved in Occupy Wall Street reveals a certain willingness to rush to certain judgements and not others. The media has failed again, reporting untrue speculations as fact and ignoring the more glaring facts as irrelevant.

[DeepGreen]

And what about this jerks apartment being "tripped wired" with supposedly explosive, flammable, and shrapnel laden devises? These firefighters, police, FBI, etc., people are in harms way right now. My solution? Why not get the killer in a room and use whatever means is necessary to get him to tell authorities what he has rigged in his apartment and what they are faced with. Waterboarding might work!

[UNT90]

Have a discussion on limiting free speech, or free press, or free religion, or the right against self-incrimination... any discussion of limiting a constitutional right is going to invoke such indignation.

Also, the responsibility of the media to accurately report the facts was thrown out the window when Cronkite retired. The news keeps reporting that this guy had an "assault weapon." The civilian AR-15 is not an assault weapon.

Pile on the boner committed by ABC accusing the guy of being a Tea Party member (which turned out not to be true) and their lack of reporting the more convincing evidence that this kid was involved in Occupy Wall Street reveals a certain willingness to rush to certain judgements and not others. The media has failed again, reporting untrue speculations as fact and ignoring the more glaring facts as irrelevant.

A nut is a nut, no matter what his political affiliation.

Are you really surprised that ABC would attempt to link this to the Tea Party? I don't know (and, frankly, don't care) if this guy is connected to Occupy Movement, but you can damn sure bet that if he is, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, and CBS will go way out of their way to avoid reporting such, while jumping on anything negative and attempt to attach it to the tea party.

No real surprise. And why the negative FOX comments on here are just so ridiculous.

Edited July 21, 2012 by UNT90

[Green P1]

Have a discussion on limiting free speech, or free press, or free religion, or the right against self-incrimination... any discussion of limiting a constitutional right is going to invoke such indignation.

Also, the responsibility of the media to accurately report the facts was thrown out the window when Cronkite retired. The news keeps reporting that this guy had an "assault weapon." The civilian AR-15 is not an assault weapon.

It is an assault weapon. Its not a hunting rifle, they're not machined precisely enough to be a sportsman's target rifle, its designed to kill people at a medium to close range... quickly. Plus anyone who knows anything about the "Civilian AR-15" knows it takes an easily accessible kit, basic hand tools, and about 15 minutes to having it firing full auto like its M-16 cousin. I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the people that go through the trouble of ascertaining an AR-15 immediately go full auto with the capability of going back to semi whenever needed... every redneck I know with one has.

I've shot them plenty of times and they're fun, really fun. Firing a rocket launcher or chucking grenades around is probably pretty damn fun too... hell lets quit infringing upon the right to bare arms and open those up to the public as well?

Edited July 21, 2012 by Green P1

[UNT90]

It is an assault weapon. Its not a hunting rifle, they're not machined precisely enough to be a sportsman's target rifle, its designed to kill people at a medium to close range... quickly. Plus anyone who knows anything about the "Civilian AR-15" knows it takes an easily accessible kit, basic hand tools, and about 15 minutes to having it firing full auto like its M-16 cousin. I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the people that go through the trouble of ascertaining an AR-15 immediately go full auto with the capability of going back to semi whenever needed... every redneck I know with one has.

I've shot them plenty of times and they're fun, really fun. Firing a rocket launcher or chucking grenades around is probably pretty damn fun too... hell lets quit infringing upon the right to bare arms and open those up to the public as well?

The problem is the right to bear arms argument is always split between those who think that limiting access to firearms (no matter the type) will help stop homicides or mass shootings. What that faction always fails to undserstand is that the other side is not making that argument. THe other side's constitutional argument is that the right to bear arms is to protect oneself from the government if the government severely oversteps it's boundries.

Under that senerio, having a fully automatic AR15 would still leave you grossly underarmed.

Either way, it's a losing argument, because neither side will budge.

[GreenMachine]

The problem is the right to bear arms argument is always split between those who think that limiting access to firearms (no matter the type) will help stop homicides or mass shootings. What that faction always fails to undserstand is that the other side is not making that argument. THe other side's constitutional argument is that the right to bear arms is to protect oneself from the government if the government severely oversteps it's boundries.

Under that senerio, having a fully automatic AR15 would still leave you grossly underarmed.

Either way, it's a losing argument, because neither side will budge.

The right to bear arms argument goes further. If they are going to take away a right provided by the constitution, what right will they take away next. I like the theater, will they take that right away? I know that is an extreme example but there are a lot of rights that we have that aren't protected by the constituion. If the gov't wants to be so involved in our daily lives, us citizens can't possibly think they won't start taking away everyday, simple rights over time, like maybe whether or not we want to buy medical insurance.

[UNTflyer]

It is an assault weapon. Its not a hunting rifle, they're not machined precisely enough to be a sportsman's target rifle, its designed to kill people at a medium to close range... quickly. Plus anyone who knows anything about the "Civilian AR-15" knows it takes an easily accessible kit, basic hand tools, and about 15 minutes to having it firing full auto like its M-16 cousin. I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the people that go through the trouble of ascertaining an AR-15 immediately go full auto with the capability of going back to semi whenever needed... every redneck I know with one has.

I've shot them plenty of times and they're fun, really fun. Firing a rocket launcher or chucking grenades around is probably pretty damn fun too... hell lets quit infringing upon the right to bare arms and open those up to the public as well?

First, the civilian AR-15 does not match the legal definition of an assault rifle... not if it is purchased legally. After-market alterations aside, we do not yet know what this kid did with the weapon, so automatically calling it an assault weapon without all the facts is irresponsible and misleading.

Under the legal "assault weapon" definition, a pump action shotgun with a folding telescope and a pistol grip is an "assault weapon".

"its designed to kill people at a medium to close range... quickly"

If this is your definition of an assault weapon, a .38 revolver is an assault weapon. Never known of any type of firearm designed to kill people "slowly".

[Mean Green 93-98]

It is an assault weapon. Its not a hunting rifle, they're not machined precisely enough to be a sportsman's target rifle, its designed to kill people at a medium to close range... quickly. Plus anyone who knows anything about the "Civilian AR-15" knows it takes an easily accessible kit, basic hand tools, and about 15 minutes to having it firing full auto like its M-16 cousin. I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the people that go through the trouble of ascertaining an AR-15 immediately go full auto with the capability of going back to semi whenever needed... every redneck I know with one has.

I've shot them plenty of times and they're fun, really fun. Firing a rocket launcher or chucking grenades around is probably pretty damn fun too... hell lets quit infringing upon the right to bare arms and open those up to the public as well?

How much does the 2nd Amendment have to do with ensuring citizens have guns for hunting?

[Green P1]

How much does the 2nd Amendment have to do with ensuring citizens have guns for hunting?

None. It relates to the right of the people to bare the arms necessary to secure a free state. Were a militia to attempt to ascertain the required arms to actually "secure" a free state in this day and age they would be summarily put down very quickly. Was the point of your post that the 2nd Ammendment is already semantically null and void?

[adman]

“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”

― Jeff Cooper

[Mean Green 93-98]

None. It relates to the right of the people to bare the arms necessary to secure a free state. Were a militia to attempt to ascertain the required arms to actually "secure" a free state in this day and age they would be summarily put down very quickly. Was the point of your post that the 2nd Ammendment is already semantically null and void?

Ya think?

[adman]

It is an assault weapon. Its not a hunting rifle, they're not machined precisely enough to be a sportsman's target rifle, its designed to kill people at a medium to close range... quickly. Plus anyone who knows anything about the "Civilian AR-15" knows it takes an easily accessible kit, basic hand tools, and about 15 minutes to having it firing full auto like its M-16 cousin. I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the people that go through the trouble of ascertaining an AR-15 immediately go full auto with the capability of going back to semi whenever needed... every redneck I know with one has.

I've shot them plenty of times and they're fun, really fun. Firing a rocket launcher or chucking grenades around is probably pretty damn fun too... hell lets quit infringing upon the right to bare arms and open those up to the public as well?

It is obvious that you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. The very term you used “assault weapon” is a made up term used by gun control advocates, which described the types of weapons which were attempted to be banned under the 1994 “Federal Assault Weapons Ban” which expired in 2004. There is no such thing as an “assault weapon”, it is a made up term. It doesn’t describe anything.

Next up – who cares if it is, or is not a hunting rifle? You *do* know that the Second Amendment of the Constitution, says *nothing* about hunting. You hunting argument is hilarious, and points out your ignorance on the subject. The Second Amendment is specifically about the right to keep and bear (not “bare”) arms. If you read the writings of the founding fathers, especially those of Jefferson and Madison (who influenced/authored the documents) you will clearly see the PURPOSE of the 2^nd amendment was to guarantee (not grant) the *individual* right to possess weapons for personal defense, and to be able to form a common defense against the government, should it be required. Nowhere in the writings that founded our country and set forth our rule of law, is there anything about “hunting”.

Moving right along, your statement “they’re not machined precisely enough to be a sportsman’s target rifle” is completely wrong. The AVERAGE AR15 is capable of 1MOA accuracy. That is 1 minute of angle, or roughly equivalent to 1” at 100yds. The AVERAGE AR15 rifle is *more* accurate than the typical hunting rifle made today. Modern enhancements already in place on the common market and in use by the military, add a free floating match grade barrel, which brings the typical AR15 down to .5MOA, or a half inch group at 100 yards. Very few rifles manufactured today of ANY kind can hold to that level of accuracy. This accuracy potential comes from the ease of free floating the barrel due to the design, AND the direct impingement gas system which does not directly contact the barrel, thereby increasing accuracy by reducing pressure on the barrel. This is something that you DON’T get from the average hunting rifle. A typical hunting rifle takes several hundred dollars of gunsmithing work, and modifications to the stock, just to achieve this floated condition. Your statements show that you know nothing about the AR15 platform, and are regurgitating incorrect information you heard from bubba at the auto parts store.

Next, lets address your statement about converting them to fully auto. Again, you post incorrect information. There is no “full auto kit”. There ARE parts you must change, however, in order to (illegally) convert the AR-15 to fully automatic configuration. This requires changing the trigger, hammer, disconnector, safety selector, and bolt carrier. Then this requires having a gunsmith drill a hole in a VERY PRECISE location in the lower receiver, and add in extra parts, including a sear trip, and spring. The location of the hole is critical, if it is off by a few thousandths of an inch the gun will not run. In addition, a huge percentage of lower receivers made for the AR15 today will not accept these parts, as they are made with something called a “sear block” in which this area is filled with aluminum or steel to block the ability to install a sear trip. You cannot crudely “file” this area, it must be machined by a competent gunsmith in order to make this work.

The previous section describes the conversion to M16 configuration. There are two alternatives to this, an auto-sear, or a lightning link. Neither of these are easy to manufacture, nor are they available to purchase on the market, because they are highly illegal. It is possible to make your own, but it requires machine work by a competent machinist to manufacture these parts. And again, the use of the sear or link requires machining your lower receiver, and converting at least 5 parts of your AR15. Your “15 minute” statement shows that you don’t know anything about the subject, and either made it up, or are continuing to regurgitate redneck coffee shop talk.

Every redneck you know has one? That’s interesting. Considering possession of a gun in this configuration is a federal crime, and carries a minimum sentence of 10 years and $10,000, per incident? Your knowledge of this makes you party to the crime, so perhaps since you posted this publically, the ATF will be giving you a call soon to discuss your options. The fact of the matter is, you are lying. Your 90% figure is a fantasy.

Did you know, however, that ownership of fully automatic weapons is perfectly legal today? Anyone who can legally own a hunting rifle, can also purchase a fully automatic M16? There is a simple process to go through where you pay a $200 tax stamp for the transfer of the M16 from the dealer to you, you only have to wait for the ATF paperwork to be processed. So, if you follow the legal process, it is simple to own and shoot full-auto weapons today, already. So what was your point? Did you have one, in between your throwing out misinformation, regurgitations, and flat out false data?

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

--- The second Amendment (1791) was put there for a lot of reasons... guns were then needed to provide food, protect citizens against Indians. also thugs, and I suppose to help maintain freedom... If you seriously think assault weapons are enough to protect you against the government in today's world... you are being delusional.. since it has tanks, jets, and armoured vehicles... just take a look at Syria now.

--- I own guns .... but I oppose these assault -type weapons being sold to the public.... they have no other purpose than to kill people (not varmints, deer, snakes etc.) and to kill a lot of people in a hurry. It is rare to find a rural type person that supports the sale of these the types. Crooks that might be able to get them but tend to drug gang types and use them against each other, rare to hear of one in a home invasions or against an individual.. I know some people that consider guns as toys.. nothing could be further from the truth. I know no-one that has ever used a gun in self defence... but I know personally several that have accidentally shot and even accidentally killed themselves or a friend.

--- If the government can prevent people in general from owning dynamite, grenades, tanks, bazookas, and anti-aircraft guns ... why not assault weapons...? They have no practical use except kill a lot of people and a lot in a hurry..... I can't remember the last time that I have heard (if ever) of an assault weapon being used by a person in self defense of themselves or their home...

--- Again don't claim I am anti-gun... I own some guns ... some serve a purpose for hunting and eliminating varmints, snakes etc. and even self-defense. I find it interesting that both Presidential candidates have voted for or urged passage of assault bans..... just not lately since they are running for office. Mass. banned them when Romney was governor and he signed it and Obama has voted for assault bans before being President. Are we just waiting for something worse to happen than the two incidents in Colorado and the representative from Arizona? .. It will happen...

Edited July 22, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

It is obvious that you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. The very term you used “assault weapon” is a made up term used by gun control advocates, which described the types of weapons which were attempted to be banned under the 1994 “Federal Assault Weapons Ban” which expired in 2004. There is no such thing as an “assault weapon”, it is a made up term. It doesn’t describe anything.

Really --- Every word we use is a "made-up" term . That term is used both by police and by the military ....meaning a rapid fire weapon with a large number of shots possible. if it was meaningless ... Why was the term used in that law.

[GreenMachine]

And what about this jerks apartment being "tripped wired" with supposedly explosive, flammable, and shrapnel laden devises? These firefighters, police, FBI, etc., people are in harms way right now. My solution? Why not get the killer in a room and use whatever means is necessary to get him to tell authorities what he has rigged in his apartment and what they are faced with. Waterboarding might work!

Come on, it can't possibly be his fault he did this. Somewhere in life, society didn't nuture him enough, hold his hand, wipe his butt etc.

All kidding aside, I completely agree. This guy is a deranged animal and should be treated as such. Once he started mowing down innocent people, he lost his right to fair and humane treatment.

[GreenMachine]

--- The second Amendment (1791) was put there for a lot of reasons... guns were then needed to provide food, protect citizens against Indians. also thugs, and I suppose to help maintain freedom...

yes, exactly.

[UNTflyer]

--- The second Amendment (1791) was put there for a lot of reasons... guns were then needed to provide food, protect citizens against Indians. also thugs, and I suppose to help maintain freedom...

No, not "I suppose". That is EXACTLY what the 2nd Amendment was for.

It was designed to deter a tyrannical government, to provide defense of the nation against both foreign and domestic enemies, and to protect one's life and property. All of these rights are rooted in the very essence of Freedom. Freedom from a hostile government, Freedom from a hostile force, and Freedom from a hostile individual.

It is rooted in the English Bill of Rights, and it was always understood that the right to self-defense applies to both the individual and the collective.

There is no doubt about the intent of the 2nd Amendment, though some would try to confuse the sheep. One only need to read original drafts and the Federalist Papers to understand this.

The original text of the 2nd Amendment was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person

As a society, we have been slowly convinced that we no longer need these Freedoms because we are more evolved. I say if James Holmes tried to pull this off in a saloon in the late 1800s, he may have been able to squeeze off one or two rounds before the heavily armed citizenry cut him down.

But because we are more evolved, 70 innocent people, docile and disarmed, were shot by this psychopath and had no means to protect themselves except to thrown themselves atop the people they loved.

The problem isn't with the guns or their availability. It's with the inability of the people to use them as they are intended.

[Mean Green 93-98]

It is rare to find a rural type person that supports the sale of these the types.

You obviously do not live in a rural area. I do, and do not know of anyone around here that opposes their sale.

[adman]

--- The second Amendment (1791) was put there for a lot of reasons... guns were then needed to provide food, protect citizens against Indians. also thugs, and I suppose to help maintain freedom... If you seriously think assault weapons are enough to protect you against the government in today's world... you are being delusional.. since it has tanks, jets, and armoured vehicles... just take a look at Syria now.

--- I own guns .... but I oppose these assault -type weapons being sold to the public.... they have no other purpose than to kill people (not varmints, deer, snakes etc.) and to kill a lot of people in a hurry. It is rare to find a rural type person that supports the sale of these the types. Crooks that might be able to get them but tend to drug gang types and use them against each other, rare to hear of one in a home invasions or against an individual.. I know some people that consider guns as toys.. nothing could be further from the truth. I know no-one that has ever used a gun in self defence... but I know personally several that have accidentally shot and even accidentally killed themselves or a friend.

--- If the government can prevent people in general from owning dynamite, grenades, tanks, bazookas, and anti-aircraft guns ... why not assault weapons...? They have no practical use except kill a lot of people and a lot in a hurry..... I can't remember the last time that I have heard (if ever) of an assault weapon being used by a person in self defense of themselves or their home...

--- Again don't claim I am anti-gun... I own some guns ... some serve a purpose for hunting and eliminating varmints, snakes etc. and even self-defense. I find it interesting that both Presidential candidates have voted for or urged passage of assault bans..... just not lately since they are running for office. Mass. banned them when Romney was governor and he signed it and Obama has voted for assault bans before being President. Are we just waiting for something worse to happen than the two incidents in Colorado and the representative from Arizona? .. It will happen...

The second amendment of the Constitution was historically grounded by the English Bill of Rights in 1689. The government (ala King) at that time was discriminating against, and therefore disarming Protestants based on his disagreement with their religious views. The Supreme Court of the United Stated has recognized this, in DC vs Heller, calling out specifically that the Second Amendment guarantees the right not to be disarmed by the Government, and in no way is only granted as part of a militia. NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with HUNTING or PROVIDING FOOD. The Second Amendment is ALL about killing people. Face it. Like it or not, that’s a fact. It is about killing those who would threaten our lives or cause serious bodily injury. It is about killing those who would threaten our rights and freedoms, foreign or domestic. It is an ugly, but very necessary reality.

As to the purpose of these guns…. They are simply semi-automatic weapons. You own guns? Do you own any semi-automatic handguns? They also fire one bullet per trigger pull, as fast as you can pull the trigger, and are capable of holding 30+ rounds of ammunition, identical to an AR15 or an AK-47. You would demonize one type of gun because YOU don’t happen to own it, but ignore the fact that if you “own guns” you likely own weapons that fall into the exact same category.

As to your statement “they have no other purpose than to kill people” is totally untrue.

The AR15 rifle is the number one weapon used in NRA Highpower competition.

The AR15 rifle is the most common rifle used in 3-gun competition, which is a nationwide sponsored competition with a professional tour, in which tens of thousands participate in every year.

The AR15 is one of the most common varmint and coyote hunting rifles in use today.

The AR15 platform rifle is THE MOT POPULAR target rifle sold today. It outnumbers EVERY other rifle sold on the market. Over 500,000 (yes half a million) AR15 type rifles were manufactured and sold to CIVILIANS in 2009 ALONE. They absolutely are the top target and sporting rifle in existence.

It is time to stop demonizing the tool, and start demonizing the person, and the act. You cannot solve this by taking guns away from law abiding citizens. As much as you like the idea of a “violence free society”. That has never existed, and never will. I choose to put guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. For sport, fun, and defense of person and personal freedoms.

Edited July 23, 2012 by adman