At least 4 dead, multiple people injured in shooting at Tulsa, Oklahoma, medical building: Police

[richard_smith237]

6 hours ago, habanero said:

I just picked up a new Springfield Saint, AR-15 today. What a beauty. God bless the 2A.

"Trip, trap, trip, trap! " went the bridge. "Who's that tripping over my bridge?" roared the troll....

 

 

 

 

 

[HappyExpat57]

1 hour ago, superal said:

I listened to Biden's speech today when he said enough , enough . However he then went on to state a compromise in banning automatic and semi automatic rifles , which still leaves a multitude of weapons to be bought . Then he proposed a raising of the age of gun buyers from 18 to 21 ( I thought that 25 would be more effective ) . However there was a sensible comment when he said that gun shop owners should not have immunity from prosecution . A member of the public was interviewed and she said that nothing will change with the gun laws because any amendment would be blocked by the republican controlled senate . A recent US poll showed a near 50/50 split on gun law revision . Law enforcement must be a nightmare in the U.S.A. Who would want to be a cop in the U.S. with so many uncontrolled guns around . The U.S.A. are the leaders of the free world and should be setting an example but at the moment they are looking like a country of idiots run by an idiotic political system that will not provide a safe place to live 

I take serious issue with a 50/50 gun law revision statement. EVERY poll of EVERY group shows a demonstrated majority approving some form of gun law reform. A recent poll of strictly ONLY gun owners showed the majority are in favor of reform. It's strictly a minority of powerful idiots known as Republican Senators, owned by the NRA via lobbyists, who are against any form of gun regulation.

 

Again, the first line of the 2nd amendment states "A well regulated militia." OK, let's get regulating dammit! Lives are literally at stake.

[superal]

57 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

I take serious issue with a 50/50 gun law revision statement. EVERY poll of EVERY group shows a demonstrated majority approving some form of gun law reform. A recent poll of strictly ONLY gun owners showed the majority are in favor of reform. It's strictly a minority of powerful idiots known as Republican Senators, owned by the NRA via lobbyists, who are against any form of gun regulation.

 

Again, the first line of the 2nd amendment states "A well regulated militia." OK, let's get regulating dammit! Lives are literally at stake.

I agree that 50/50 may not be accurate and that info came from a UK news programme . I did a quick Google search and it seems that the higher % is in favour for gun law reform , accept when republicans were asked . However, here is an interesting link from the HILL

     https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/3501380-more-than-half-of-americans-want-stricter-gun-laws-poll/

[Sheryl]

With polls on gun laws - like polls on abortion or anything else -- very different replies can be elicited according to exactly how the questions are worded.

 

 

[HappyExpat57]

53 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

With polls on gun laws - like polls on abortion or anything else -- very different replies can be elicited according to exactly how the questions are worded.

True, but regardless how the polls are worded, they ALL point towards some gun regulation being necessary.

[onthedarkside]

A disallowed social media post has been removed, along with a photo post that contained no weblink or source for the photo.

 

"Social Media content is acceptable in most social forums. However, in factual areas such as news, current affairs and health topics, it cannot be used unless it is from a credible news media source or government agency, and must include a weblink to the original source."

 

https://aseannow.com/terms/

 

[dunroaming]

14 hours ago, bannork said:

So many mass shootings in the USA, it's only a matter of time before the topic has its own sub- forum on TV's World News.

Eventually people become numb to it, not even bothering to read the articles about it.

[Phoenix Rising]

6 hours ago, digger70 said:

How much does an AR-15 cost?

New AR-15 rifles can sell for $400 to $2,000 and nearly every major gun manufacturer produces one. Ammunition is inexpensive and can be bought in bulk online, and magazines are interchangeable between manufacturers. 

So a fraction of a child's funeral costs.

 

https://www.lhlic.com/consumer-resources/average-funeral-cost/#:~:text=The average funeral costs between,or other things like flowers.

[habanero]

7 hours ago, JCauto said:

Why don't you go to Ukraine and show what a hero you really are? Oh, not so fun when the other guys shoot back? 

Another child in an adult body. 

I have served more than enough time in a combat zone. I have nothing to prove.

 

[kwonitoy]

[radiochaser]

16 hours ago, swm59nj said:

These shootings in America are being done by mentality disturbed people.  And when one mentality disturbed person commits a violent act it’s given publicity on the news.  Then all the mentality disturbed  copycats come out and it’s a chain reaction.  
People are posting on here like every American is just walking around shooting people.  Or is violent.  And instead of looking at this and other issues realistically,  Some people on here just ridicule America and other western countries for everything.  They were bitter probably because they couldn’t make it in  America  or their own countries .So they take the opportunity to 
ridicule an entire country every chance they get.

And by the way.  Not every person is violent or has the potential for violence in America.  If you make an assumption like that .  It just shows how ignorant you actually are. 

You did not mention the multiple mass shootings committed by criminals, who are prohibited from possesing firearms by both local and / or federal laws.  

Those mass shootings are primarily done in cities and /or states that have the most restrictive firearms possession laws in the United States.  

I think it was Chicago, over the Memorial Day weekend, there were 51 peoples shot, which is apparently not front page, hourly, daily, weekly reporting, except when it suits the purpose of the mass media here in the U.S. of A.  I am pretty sure that most of the firearms used in those mass shootings were not legally purchased or legally possessed. 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/juliorosas/2022/05/31/over-40-people-shot-during-memorial-day-weekend-in-chicago-n2608003

[radiochaser]

3 hours ago, kwonitoy said:

Social media in the era when the 1st Amendment was written. 

https://thejuntocast.com/episodes/ep-19-print-culture-in-early-america/

[radiochaser]

17 hours ago, Excel said:

Seems to be a lot of AR15s being used as the favoured weapon in human slaughter in the US.  How much are they to buy there as I assume being ten-a-penny they are pretty cheap, or in the US do they give them away with a box of corn flakes ?

No.

[richard_smith237]

5 hours ago, habanero said:

I have served more than enough time in a combat zone. I have nothing to prove.

 

In Afghanistan were 273 secret missions fought by 147 Special Forces Soldiers..... So far I have met 576 of you....  ????

 

 

[Stargeezr]

In Thailand, another day another motorcycle crash. In the USA another day another shooting.

This is the world we live in. NRA and its supporters like Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz, have blood on their

hands, by their continued support.

[baboon]

On 6/3/2022 at 2:27 AM, richard_smith237 said:

and the galactically moronic line... 'Guns don’t kill, people do’... 

Yes, people with guns.

But that is all I have to say. The next atrocity will follow shortly.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

On 6/3/2022 at 7:49 AM, wombat said:

A bullet killed JFK...NO ONE blamed the bullet

Actually, it wasn't the bullet.

It was the SPEED of the bullet. 

 

I don't care how good an arm Oswald had, or how accurate. If he'd thrown that bullet at JFK's head with his bare-hands, it wouldn't have even left a mark!

 

Bullets don't kill people.

Really FAST bullets kill people! 

 

I say we cap bullet speed at 75 mph (about 120 kph). Problem, solved! 

 

Cheers! 

 

[JCauto]

18 hours ago, habanero said:

I have served more than enough time in a combat zone. I have nothing to prove.

 

And you have learned nothing from the experience then. If you served, you've seen the horrible damage these weapons can inflict on those shot, you've understood that you only could even serve with those weapons if you were passed initial, regular and update training every single year you served. If you demonstrated poor fire discipline, equipment maintenance or insubordination, you were punished for it. You were continually monitored by your superior officers. You could not take the weapons off base or off duty.

Yet you're totally cool with giving 18yo a right to go buy a semi-auto with similar killing power along with a high capacity magazine without any background check, any training, any obligation to ensure that they're a safe gun user, any licensing, any wait period, any oversight, any storage. No restrictions, let's just give them to everyone who wants one and wonder why all the carnage takes place? How do you justify that position from a logical point of view?

[KanchanaburiGuy]

Asking people whether they are in favor of gun regulation.......... is like asking people if they are in favor of clean air. They will virtually all answer "yes"........... but they won't give up their cars to achieve it. 

 

Same goes for "gun regulation"------People will SAY are overwhelmingly in favor of it........... as long as it doesn't get in the way of them getting what THEY want! 

 

In truth, it's actually a fairly nonsensical question. 

 

. 

 

Remember, the people who answer these polls, are the same people who consistently give Congress a 15-20% approval rating.......... then re-elect over 90% of incumbents! 

 

The first mistake made by polling organizations........ is the assumption that the people they will be talking to will be rational. 

 

Except frequently, they are not! 

 

The point made upthread about abortions is spot on. If you asked, "Would you rather people didn't have abortions?" I'd bet good money you'd get better than 90% agreement. But if you asked, "Do you think people should not be allowed to have abortions?" the rate of agreement would plummet. (I'd guess less than 15-20%)

 

Sorry, but polls that ask nonsense questions........... are going to wind up being filled with nonsense answers. ("Yes, I'd like to breathe clean air!" ????????????)

 

Cheers! 

 

 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

On 6/3/2022 at 1:41 PM, HappyExpat57 said:

Again, the first line of the 2nd amendment states "A well regulated militia." OK, let's get regulating dammit! Lives are literally at stake

Hmmm. 

 

The first clause of the first sentence of the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting  an establishment of religion........" 

 

Now, if you read that wrong......... if you read it the way we'd typically use the word "respect" in the modern era........... in modern parlance.......... that clause says, "Congress shall make no law that shows respect toward any establishment of religion........"...... a decidedly negative interpretation!

 

But that's what it says! It's right there in the Bill of Rights! 

 

The trick here is that in the modern era, we almost never use "respecting" in this way. We're more likely to say "concerning" or "regarding".......... or some other thesaurus word choice. 

 

Thus, if you didn't know that "respecting" was meant in a very different way then......... than it is today........... you could be very, VERY confused about what that clause is saying. It would be very easy to consider it extremely anti-religion! 

 

Which brings me to the word "regulated"........... 

 

"Regulated" 235 years ago WASN'T a reference to rules and laws. "Regulated" THEN was talking about being maintained. Maintained and orderly. The need for a well-MAINTAINED militia. 

 

Both "respecting" and "regulated" still mean these same things today. They are still part of these words' definitions. But today, they might be listed as a third or fourth or fifth definition, rather than the first or second. 

 

Now, I'm going to guess that you don't believe that the First Amendment instructs Congress to be anti-religion, even though, in modern parlance, that's exactly what it says: "No law respecting an establishment of religion........"

 

So too perhaps you'll understand that having a "well regulated militia"....... DOESN'T MEAN......... having a bunch of laws and regulations concerning guns and gun ownership!

 

Cheers!

[HappyExpat57]

12 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Hmmm. 

 

The first clause of the first sentence of the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting  an establishment of religion........" 

 

Now, if you read that wrong......... if you read it the way we'd typically use the word "respect" in the modern era........... in modern parlance.......... that clause says, "Congress shall make no law that shows respect toward any establishment of religion........"...... a decidedly negative interpretation!

 

But that's what it says! It's right there in the Bill of Rights! 

 

The trick here is that in the modern era, we almost never use "respecting" in this way. We're more likely to say "concerning" or "regarding".......... or some other thesaurus word choice. 

 

Thus, if you didn't know that "respecting" was meant in a very different way then......... than it is today........... you could be very, VERY confused about what that clause is saying. It would be very easy to consider it extremely anti-religion! 

 

Which brings me to the word "regulated"........... 

 

"Regulated" 235 years ago WASN'T a reference to rules and laws. "Regulated" THEN was talking about being maintained. Maintained and orderly. The need for a well-MAINTAINED militia. 

 

Both "respecting" and "regulated" still mean these same things today. They are still part of these words' definitions. But today, they might be listed as a third or fourth or fifth definition, rather than the first or second. 

 

Now, I'm going to guess that you don't believe that the First Amendment instructs Congress to be anti-religion, even though, in modern parlance, that's exactly what it says: "No law respecting an establishment of religion........"

 

So too perhaps you'll understand that having a "well regulated militia"....... DOESN'T MEAN......... having a bunch of laws and regulations concerning guns and gun ownership!

 

Cheers!

Yeah . . . no.

[Bkk Brian]

19 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

So too perhaps you'll understand that having a "well regulated militia"....... DOESN'T MEAN......... having a bunch of laws and regulations concerning guns and gun ownership!

 

Cheers!

Yes it does actually

[HappyExpat57]

31 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes it does actually

Wasn't that a WHOLE lot of "yadda yadda yadda?" Too much verbage just to be wrong in the end.

[Bkk Brian]

5 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Wasn't that a WHOLE lot of "yadda yadda yadda?" Too much verbage just to be wrong in the end.

Same with every post made by him.............phew

[habanero]

On 6/4/2022 at 1:30 AM, JCauto said:

And you have learned nothing from the experience then. If you served, you've seen the horrible damage these weapons can inflict on those shot, you've understood that you only could even serve with those weapons if you were passed initial, regular and update training every single year you served. If you demonstrated poor fire discipline, equipment maintenance or insubordination, you were punished for it. You were continually monitored by your superior officers. You could not take the weapons off base or off duty.

Yet you're totally cool with giving 18yo a right to go buy a semi-auto with similar killing power along with a high capacity magazine without any background check, any training, any obligation to ensure that they're a safe gun user, any licensing, any wait period, any oversight, any storage. No restrictions, let's just give them to everyone who wants one and wonder why all the carnage takes place? How do you justify that position from a logical point of view?

All I stated is that a purchased a new rifle. Look at what you have thus interpreted. You must be a fan of the "View".  I mentioned nothing about an 18 yo. purchasing a gun. Also, mentioned nothing about high capacity magazines. Thou, I must admit. I don't believe in licensing. Would you be in favor of licensing so that you can exercise your 1st amendment rights? Or would the 4th amendment not apply to you because you failed to purchase a 4th amendment license? For your information, I have never purchased a firearm and I have purchased many. Without having to go through a background check. That even includes buying just a lower receiver for an M4 carbine.  Again, I think you listen to the ladies of the View too much.

[habanero]

On 6/3/2022 at 1:41 AM, HappyExpat57 said:

I take serious issue with a 50/50 gun law revision statement. EVERY poll of EVERY group shows a demonstrated majority approving some form of gun law reform. A recent poll of strictly ONLY gun owners showed the majority are in favor of reform. It's strictly a minority of powerful idiots known as Republican Senators, owned by the NRA via lobbyists, who are against any form of gun regulation.

 

Again, the first line of the 2nd amendment states "A well regulated militia." OK, let's get regulating dammit! Lives are literally at stake.

 I also states, "Shall not be infringed".  Why is that the only amendment that say's that?

 

[Scott]

Troll post removed.

 

[JCauto]

On 6/6/2022 at 8:05 PM, habanero said:

All I stated is that a purchased a new rifle. Look at what you have thus interpreted. You must be a fan of the "View".  I mentioned nothing about an 18 yo. purchasing a gun. Also, mentioned nothing about high capacity magazines. Thou, I must admit. I don't believe in licensing. Would you be in favor of licensing so that you can exercise your 1st amendment rights? Or would the 4th amendment not apply to you because you failed to purchase a 4th amendment license? For your information, I have never purchased a firearm and I have purchased many. Without having to go through a background check. That even includes buying just a lower receiver for an M4 carbine.  Again, I think you listen to the ladies of the View too much.

Typical deflection and misdirection - disingenuousness is your calling card. This entire discussion is about allowing civilians to purchase these weapons without restriction and the context is the 18yo who went out on his birthday, bought one and shot up an Elementary School. Remember? Oh yeah!

And even still your response is "I don't believe in licensing", and then go off on a nonsensical argument about different constitutional amendments. Do you think it is the same thing to license people to use a weapon that can kill dozens in a few minutes versus having a license to speak? Of course you don't, you're just throwing stuff at the wall in the hope you don't have to make a logical argument, something you are basically incapable of. I will be charitable and assume there was a typo in your sentence "FYI, I have never purchased a firearm and I have purchased many" which makes no sense. I have never watched an episode of "the View" - I don't watch television at all.

So now that we've wasted time on your nonsensical non-sequitur, let's get back to the question I asked you. You state that you served time in a combat zone, meaning you were a highly trained soldier who had to regularly undertake refresher training in the use of guns and requalify, store the weapons in authorized and secure locations, learn about proper use, fire discipline, etc. With this knowledge, how do you justify providing similar weapons to kids with no training and no requirement to safely store the weapons? Do you think it was a waste of time to train you, and all that was needed was to slap on some camo gear and send you into war? Why do you need training when this kid does not?

[KanchanaburiGuy]

2 hours ago, JCauto said:

Typical deflection and misdirection - disingenuousness is your calling card. This entire discussion is about allowing civilians to purchase these weapons without restriction and the context is the 18yo who went out on his birthday, bought one and shot up an Elementary School. Remember? Oh yeah!

And even still your response is "I don't believe in licensing", and then go off on a nonsensical argument about different constitutional amendments. Do you think it is the same thing to license people to use a weapon that can kill dozens in a few minutes versus having a license to speak? Of course you don't, you're just throwing stuff at the wall in the hope you don't have to make a logical argument, something you are basically incapable of. I will be charitable and assume there was a typo in your sentence "FYI, I have never purchased a firearm and I have purchased many" which makes no sense. I have never watched an episode of "the View" - I don't watch television at all.

So now that we've wasted time on your nonsensical non-sequitur, let's get back to the question I asked you. You state that you served time in a combat zone, meaning you were a highly trained soldier who had to regularly undertake refresher training in the use of guns and requalify, store the weapons in authorized and secure locations, learn about proper use, fire discipline, etc. With this knowledge, how do you justify providing similar weapons to kids with no training and no requirement to safely store the weapons? Do you think it was a waste of time to train you, and all that was needed was to slap on some camo gear and send you into war? Why do you need training when this kid does not?

Don't you realize that the training done in the military primarily exists for two reasons............

 

1) To improve a person's ability to kill; and

 

2) To limit the chances they will kill the wrong people, accidentally.

 

See, that military training you seem to believe is important enough to mention........... exists almost exclusively for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of armed personnel. It exists to teach them how to kill efficiently and properly. 

 

---------------

 

If an 18-year old wants to buy guns with the aim of shooting up an elementary school............... what sort of mandatory training  do you think is going to talk him out of that? 

 

Certainly not military training. Military training would just teach him how to be better at it! 

 

????????????

 

Cheers! 

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Beforehand, I assumed your problem was a lack of comprehension: You simply didn't understand that back then, the word "regulated" meant something very different. 

 

So, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I went to the trouble to explain. 

 

Now it appears your problem is simply your inability to learn. 

 

Sorry, my mistake. In the future, I'll try harder not to overestimate you. 

 

Cheers! 

I understand all I need from your ramblings thank you