I wonder if his kids had the misfortune to be gunned down if that would change his position on the matter.

Do bear in mind that he is one of those right-wing/MAGA/FoxCable types that has to say this crazy stuff to promote himself and the brand he's part of.  It's not an excuse, just pointing out he does this as part of his job.  He should get a more honorable job, like cleaning toilets.

 

 

The USA has fallen mightily and continues in decline. It's become so unhinged and usurped by ignorant Trump sucking, gun toting, bible banging, Fox News loving, conspiracy spouting, extreme right-wing imbecile hypocrites. It's just gross. ????

29 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

The USA has fallen mightily and continues in decline. It's become so unhinged and usurped by ignorant Trump sucking, gun toting, bible banging, Fox News loving, conspiracy spouting, extreme right-wing imbecile hypocrites. It's just gross. ????

C'mon man, don't hold back now.

Dos anyone really think that banning guns in the USA would mean criminals having less guns ? 

13 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

Dos anyone really think that banning guns in the USA would mean criminals having less guns ? 

Criminals having guns is not the issue trying to be solved by gun control proposals.

How many criminals, prior to the event, are responsible for mass shootings?

How many children are killed by criminals in one on one homicides or gang shoot outs?

16 hours ago, onthedarkside said:

"I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights, that is a prudent deal. It is rational, nobody talks like this, they live in a complete alternate universe."

I prefer to live in a universe where there is no God giving out rights, so there can't be any individuals who interpret these "rights" to advance their own power plays.

21 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

Dos anyone really think that banning guns in the USA would mean criminals having less guns ? 

The OP was following a mass shooting at a school in Nashville.

 

I suggest your post is a classic straw man deflection and diversion from any real solution to stop mass shootings of innocent people including children in schools.

 

After the banning of guns in Australia in 1996 following a mass shooting of 35 people there wasn't another mass shooting for 23 years.

 

"Dos anyone really think that banning guns in the USA" would not mean less mass murders?

 

 

If you can't hit your deer or elk with three rounds in a magazine, you shouldn't be allowed to hunt at all!

There is no valid reason for 10-20-30 round magazines for hunting. Outlaw large-capacity magazines and you remove a major factor in these mass shootings. 

Today's AR-15s sold in American sporting goods stores only LOOK like assault rifles, but they are NOT. They are NOT automatic weapons (which define assault weapons,) but single-shot semi-automatic rifles just like Uncle Bob's old deer gun, only not so friendly 'looking.'  You have to pull the trigger for every shot no matter how many rounds are in the magazine. Reduce the capacity of the magazine and you reduce the capacity for sustained rapid fire.
No need to 'ban' guns. Just make them less useful for the average mass murderer. And isn't it a shame that we actually DO have an 'average' mass murderer these days?

11 hours ago, FolkGuitar said:

If you can't hit your deer or elk with three rounds in a magazine, you shouldn't be allowed to hunt at all!

There is no valid reason for 10-20-30 round magazines for hunting. Outlaw large-capacity magazines and you remove a major factor in these mass shootings. 

Today's AR-15s sold in American sporting goods stores only LOOK like assault rifles, but they are NOT. They are NOT automatic weapons (which define assault weapons,) but single-shot semi-automatic rifles just like Uncle Bob's old deer gun, only not so friendly 'looking.'  You have to pull the trigger for every shot no matter how many rounds are in the magazine. Reduce the capacity of the magazine and you reduce the capacity for sustained rapid fire.
No need to 'ban' guns. Just make them less useful for the average mass murderer. And isn't it a shame that we actually DO have an 'average' mass murderer these days?

Rapid fire guns should also be banned as well as high velocity small calibre weapons designed specifically to kill humans at short range. Real hunting rifles are all bolt action.

On 4/7/2023 at 2:53 PM, ozimoron said:

well regulated militia" never meant "anybody". Do explain how automatic weapons bans don't violate the second amendment.

Have a look at SCOTUS rulings. DC v Heller for example. The militia means every one and 'arms' are not defined. 

2 minutes ago, Scott Tracy said:

Have a look at SCOTUS rulings. DC v Heller for example. The militia means every one and 'arms' are not defined. 

My main aim was to have you explain how machine guns can be banned but the AR15 can't.

I'm sure he'll profess the same opinion if one of more of his direct family were shot and killed. Like his kids, for example.

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

My main aim was to have you explain how machine guns can be banned but the AR15 can't.

I'm not sure any weapon, considered to be an 'arm', can be banned, under my interpretation...

 

Give everyone a weapon, the federal government should not infringe this right. 

1 minute ago, Scott Tracy said:

I'm not sure any weapon, considered to be an 'arm', can be banned, under my interpretation...

 

Give everyone a weapon, the federal government should not infringe this right. 

My point is that they have been banned for about a century now. That this is the case proves beyond any right wing "interpretation" of the second amendment that the AR 14 could be banned and that the amendment would still survive. Put simply, the second amendment isn't an unqualified green light for any guns or "arms" if you like.

Possession of a machine gun is generally legal in more than two-thirds of states, according to an analysis published by the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, as long as the gun was lawfully possessed prior to May 19, 1986, the day President Ronald Reagan signed a major gun law. Thirty-five states have “minimal or no regulation” of machine guns, according to the Giffords analysis.

 

Sorry guy, you're wrong....

2 minutes ago, Scott Tracy said:

Possession of a machine gun is generally legal in more than two-thirds of states, according to an analysis published by the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, as long as the gun was lawfully possessed prior to May 19, 1986, the day President Ronald Reagan signed a major gun law. Thirty-five states have “minimal or no regulation” of machine guns, according to the Giffords analysis.

 

Sorry guy, you're wrong....

They are highly restricted in most states and possession after 1886 is more restricted. That's all the left are asking for. It also leaves a third of states, by your own admission, where they are completely banned. This still proves my point that any guns can be banned or restricted without burning the second amendment.

Is he volunteering? 

Take away the guns from good people who have a right to own them and with a small amount of police and what do you have? More blood spilt  on the streets than ever before.

Just now, vandeventer said:

Take away the guns from good people who have a right to own them and with a small amount of police and what do you have? More blood spilt  on the streets than ever before.

except that statistics prove the opposite in every other developed country in the world.

15 hours ago, ozimoron said:

My main aim was to have you explain how machine guns can be banned but the AR15 can't.

I think fully-automatic (single trigger pull firing multiple rounds) firearms will eventually be legal in all states, given the SCOTUS make-up and the majority's interpretation of the 2A.

 

The first step is the removal of the bump-stock ban, overturned by the 5th Circuit 13:3, and which the Biden Administration/DoJ will appeal to SCOTUS. And SCOTUS will affirm the 5th Circuit's opinion.

 

Biden appeals ruling against ban on gun bump stocks

 

April 7 (Reuters) - President Joe Biden's administration on Friday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its appeal of a lower court ruling against a federal ban on "bump stock" devices that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire like machine guns.

 

In January, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Cargill, concluding that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), a U.S. Justice Department agency, impermissibly reclassified bump stocks as machine guns, which are forbidden under U.S. law.

 

https://www.reuters.com/legal/biden-appeals-ruling-against-ban-gun-bump-stocks-2023-04-07/#:~:text=In January%2C the New Orleans,are forbidden under U.S. law.

 

After that it's a slow (or fast?) march to fully auto weapons, and I can't see how any weapon could ever be banned. This would include grenade launchers, shoulder-fired missiles, drone-mounted firearms, drone-launched ordinance, etc.

 

Even though I am not associated with a well-regulaed militia, you can't infringe on my right to own, use, walk around in public with any "arm".

 

 

The National Firearms Act of 1934 banned the machine gun.

 

https://homicide.northwestern.edu/docs_fk/homicide/laws/national_firearms_act_of_1934.pdf

 

 

The argument goes something like this: if you confiscate guns from law abiding citizens—only bad guys will have guns.

47 minutes ago, Isaan sailor said:

The argument goes something like this: if you confiscate guns from law abiding citizens—only bad guys will have guns.

Yeah. Makes about as much sense as the Second Amendment.

 

I mean if you replace "guns" with "muskets" which required ~ 30 seconds to re-load.

 

 

IMO, the Second Amendment should be interpreted in "originalist" format, so what ever weapons were availble then (~ 1780) are covered by the Second Amendment now. Tri-cornered hats, and well-regulated militias, are optional. And yes, if you really want a canon go for it.

 

 

9 minutes ago, bamnutsak said:

Yeah. Makes about as much sense as the Second Amendment.

 

I mean if you replace "guns" with "muskets" which required ~ 30 seconds to re-load.

 

 

IMO, the Second Amendment should be interpreted in "originalist" format, so what ever weapons were availble then (~ 1780) are covered by the Second Amendment now. Tri-cornered hats, and well-regulated militias, are optional. And yes, if you really want a canon go for it.

 

 

The SC needs to decide if they want to be originalists or adapt to the modern world. If originalists then they need to define what a well regulated militia actually is as well as define arms in the context of the date when the second amendment was promulgated. . If they want to be reformists then they need to explain how they can't ban assault rifles in the same way as the machine gun ban. Right now they want it both ways.

On 4/8/2023 at 8:12 AM, Skeptic7 said:

The USA has fallen mightily and continues in decline. It's become so unhinged and usurped by ignorant Trump sucking, gun toting, bible banging, Fox News loving, conspiracy spouting, extreme right-wing imbecile hypocrites. It's just gross. ????

Biden doing a top notch job of destroying the place too. 

7 hours ago, vandeventer said:

Take away the guns from good people who have a right to own them and with a small amount of police and what do you have? More blood spilt  on the streets than ever before.

If I lived in the US, I’d definitely want to own a gun for protection.

10 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Right now they want it both ways.

No. They want it "their" way.

 

9 minutes ago, AndyFoxy said:

Biden doing a top notch job of destroying the place too. 

I though you guys said that Joe was brain-dead and sequestered in the basement? But, now, whoa, he's playing 4D chess?

 

Sheesh, settle on a narrative and stick to it.

 

8 minutes ago, AndyFoxy said:

If I lived in the US, I’d definitely want to own a gun for protection.

"If"? (I for one am thankful you do not. Phew, dodged a bullet on that one.)

 

Why?

 

I honestly do no know anyone who owns a gun. ( My grandfathers did, they were hunters, but they're long deceased. )

 

 

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, bamnutsak said:

 

 

Why?

 

I honestly do no know anyone who owns a gun. ( My grandfathers did, they were hunters, but they're long deceased. )

 

 

 

 

 

Too many others out there with guns and bad intentions. 

On 4/9/2023 at 6:22 PM, AndyFoxy said:

Too many others out there with guns and bad intentions. 

I am very, very PRO-Second Amendment.

 

I believe you should be able to own and operate any weapon so ratified on December 15, 1791.

 

Any weapon not so stipulated by general records and historians as being available then must be further amended. Yes, I'm going there, see also ERA.

 

An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

 

And any weapons not so amended are ILLEGAL, and must be turned over to the government for destruction.  BTW, as much as it pains me to say this, the police are a necessary regulated militia. Joe Bob down the street is not.

 

 

And I'll finish with my request to repeal PLCAA, arguably one of the most heinous pieces of legislation ever passed. And that's saying something given our history.

 

Firearms need "protection". WOW!

 

 

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

 

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a U.S law, passed in 2005, that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. Both arms manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.

 

The PLCAA is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901–7903.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act#Notes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 4/7/2023 at 7:00 PM, Tug said:

With all (due respect) mr Kirk you are effin wrong it is not worth a child’s life so you can have an assault weapon 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk

 

Occupation      Political activist
Years active    2012–present
Organizations    Turning Point USA, Turning Point Action, Students for Trump
Political party    Republican
Spouse               Erika Frantzve (m. 2021)
Children    1

 

He has one child. I wonder if his views would change if it was his child slaughtered by some mindless moron with an AR 15?

 

quote from the OP

 

"I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights, that is a prudent deal. It is rational, nobody talks like this, they live in a complete alternate universe."

 

He is a member of the GOP and a supporter of Trump.

 

There is a lot more information in the link if anyone wishes to read it.

On 4/7/2023 at 7:14 PM, Kwasaki said: