The gun deaths IS THE POINT

[Bluesaph]

People go to great lengths to sidestep the fact that our culture IS VIOLENT!

Half of the country doesn’t care how many kids die in schools. Half of the country doesn’t care if we fear being killed at a concert or a movie theater or walking to the park!

The SCROTUS decision today makes it clear: Americans are a violent people. WE CAME INTO BEING IN VIOLENCE AND WE WILL DIE IN VIOLENCE! We have a culture of violence and death. “Freedom” is the bait. Violence is the switch! How free are we, really, when we can’t send our kids to school in peace?

We should all be ashamed!

We allowed Trump to win! We knew what they would do and still many refused to vote for Hillary. Some Bernie Bros. even voted for Trump!

I’m disgusted! And I’m out of here. Making my plans and bailing. This place sucks!

[SarahD]

1. I think it's worse than that.

Yes, we are inclined to see violence as a solution to problems, as evidenced by our love of the death penalty. But we go even further, as in the bump stock decision, which makes violence against our fellow citizens as a fundamental right, a right more important than freedom from fear or freedom to go on living. The Second Amendment is now the right to threaten each other with murder and mayhem as an expression of freedom. God help us.

[yagotme]

3. Hmm, I don't remember seeing this in the decision:

the bump stock decision, which makes violence against our fellow citizens as a fundamental right,

Do you have an excerpt?

[SarahD]

4. It's my own conclusion.

Since a bump stock has no use except to spray bullets at a crowd of people, the conclusion I reach is that the Supremes view the ability to inflict mass casualties as part of the right to keep and bear arms. They would not dare say it outright, but I see it as an inevitable conclusion.

[yagotme]

6. Are you sure?

Since a bump stock has no use except to spray bullets at a crowd of people,

I must have missed all those mass murder scenes where bump stocks were used. Thousands of them were made, and I know of only 1 case where they were used illegally. Maybe all those law abiding citizens are "misusing" their bullet sprayers by not aiming them at people, I guess.

[canuckledragger]

16. that's because some tend to ignore any and all facts that don't support the fairy tales they're pushing.

But anything goes when you're pushing an agenda, I guess.

[yagotme]

19. So, since you are the keeper of the facts, lay some on me.

How many instances has a bump stock been used in a crime since it's inception? I know of 1. If you have more, please let us know.

But anything goes when you're pushing an agenda, I guess.

You may not know how right you really are...

[canuckledragger]

21. yes, it's certainly obvious that someone is trying to derail a meaningfull discussion here.

fact. there you go!

[EarlG]

74. Why does there need to be more than one?

You've reduced it down to, "How many instances has a bump stock been used in a crime since it's inception? I know of 1." Which doesn't sound too bad.

Except, the crime you're talking about was the deadliest mass shooting in American history. A single gunman, 60 people dead, 850 people injured. At least 400 of those injuries were caused directly by bullets or shrapnel, the others were caused in the ensuing panic.

Those are the kind of casualty figures you get when you set off a bomb in a crowded public place. Since the gunman killed himself, it was essentially the equivalent of a large-scale suicide bombing. But you're handwaving it like, eh, that was just one time, got any more?

Any other civilized nation would act to prevent such an event from occurring again. Here in the U.S. we did just about the bare minimum. Banned bump stocks. Whoop-de-do. And now they're legal again. Whoop-de-do.

Consider how far the Overton Window has been moved in favor of gun ownership vs public safety, when you can sit there and comfortably dismiss the killing and wounding of almost 1,000 innocent people in ten minutes with the statement, "If you have more, please let us know."

[yagotme]

75. If we banned an item every time it was used in a mass killing, we would have nothing.

If there is an integral problem with the device, it would be consistently showing up on the radar. If it's so deadly, the only purpose is to kill people (although, it's not actually a weapon, in and of itself), I would think that it would be showing up regularly in the news. It's not, and hasn't. If it's design is to merely kill people, then the design team failed, because thousands are out there, but were being used lawfully. I mean, let's ban moving vans, because some idiot drove into a crowd and killed a bunch of people with it.

[EarlG]

82. Thought experiment for you, on gun ownership in general

I'm asking this because of the "lets ban cars since they're just as dangerous" argument you've gone to multiple times in this thread.

If we could magically get rid of every single vehicle in America tomorrow (other than those used by the military for warfighting), we would instantly reduce annual deaths by vehicle from thousands, to zero. The negative consequences would be that nobody would be able to travel more than a mile or two from their homes, unless they had a horse. There would be no first responders outside of walking distance, no trash pickup, no large scale building projects, goods couldn't be transported en masse, and our entire economy and society as we know it would collapse.

Meanwhile, if we could magically get rid of every single gun in America (other than those used by the military for warfighting), we would instantly reduce gun deaths to zero. The negative consequences would be......?

[yagotme]

85. As a thought experiment, (as both things are impossible), here's my take:

Since there are no magic wands, we're going to have to take some imaginary trips. Getting rid of either item, in America, without getting rid of them worldwide, is a bad start. Criminals will be criminals, and if there is a source for a banned item, you can be sure it will be procured, and brought here. So, we have to imagine both items have disappeared off the planet. For guns, you ask for the negative consequences. Let's consider history. People have been killing each other for millenia. SInce the beginning. I imagine the lack of guns will not stop this trend. The weak have always been victims of the strong. Having access to a firearm allows the weak to have a better chance of surviving an assault than not having one. Why are so many mass shootings taking place in gun-free zones? Because the only gun there, is the one the perp brought with him. They know that resistance will be minimal, if not entirely lacking. With police response times, they have several minutes to do their dirty deeds, before another firearm arrives on the scene to oppose them. Often, they commit suicide when it's at the end.

Banning an item, just because it is misused, doesn't make sense. I go to the car/alcohol alternative, to provide some perspective. No item can be "bad" all by itself. It's the human element that's "bad", not the thing. Cars can be misused. Alcohol can be misused. Baseball bats can be misused. Do we ban them for the actions of their owners? The bump stock is an item, not even a firearm, in and of itself. It's a piece of formed plastic. Itis not capable of killing anyone on its own, unless you beat it over somebody's head until it breaks, then cut their throat with it. The stock comes closer to the car analogy even more so than actual firearms, as it is not technically a firearm. Just a thing.

(I won't cover the Constitution, as this is merely a thought exercise.)

[EarlG]

97. Thanks for the reply

Although you changed the terms of my thought experiment

I specifically stated that guns would only disappear from America, and that the military would still have them for warfighting. Here's the question again:

If we could magically get rid of every single vehicle in America tomorrow (other than those used by the military for warfighting), we would instantly reduce annual deaths by vehicle from thousands, to zero. The negative consequences would be that nobody would be able to travel more than a mile or two from their homes, unless they had a horse. There would be no first responders outside of walking distance, no trash pickup, no large scale building projects, goods couldn't be transported en masse, and our entire economy and society as we know it would collapse.

Meanwhile, if we could magically get rid of every single gun in America (other than those used by the military for warfighting), we would instantly reduce gun deaths to zero. The negative consequences would be......?

Although you changed the question I asked, it seems the only actual negative consequence you could think of is, "The weak have always been victims of the strong. Having access to a firearm allows the weak to have a better chance of surviving an assault than not having one."

But... is that it? We have to sacrifice tens of thousands of American men, women, and children to firearms every year over the nebulous and highly debatable concept of "guns protect the weak from the strong?"

That concept didn't help the 60 people who got massacred in Las Vegas by a "strong" man who hid in a hotel room and then shot himself in the head (not to mention the 400-plus people that he wounded and the other 400-plus people who were injured in the stampede).

Perhaps the reality is that in fact, guns can make weak people think they're strong. And why wouldn't they? Guns literally give people the power of life and death over others. They make people -- often depressed, angry, unstable, or just plain evil people -- believe that it would be a lot easier to rob that bank, or get revenge on that cheating wife, or teach those annoying co-workers a lesson. Guns are problem solvers in all kinds of situations, with the caveat that the solution is always death.

I mean, this is how guns are directly marketed to people in this country: "You're weak. A gun will make you strong. Get a gun if you don't want to be weak."



Do you think that maybe, just maybe, it's not true? That the proliferation of guns doesn't make the country safer, doesn't make neighborhoods, or people, safer? That even cowboys in the OId West knew this?



Do you think that the concept of "guns protect the weak from the strong," filtered through the concept of "guns make you a real man," as seen in the Bushmaster ad above, might all just be the result of multimillion-dollar marketing campaigns by massive ad companies over the last few decades, aimed at increasing the profits of gun manufacturers? Like how cigarette companies used to run ads featuring doctors telling you that it's healthy to smoke cigarettes? Could that be remotely plausible? Would it explain why "things weren't like this back in the old days?"

To be fair, my thought experiment isn't much of an experiment, because the answer is obvious, you just don't want to admit it. I know this might be tough for you to acknowledge, but if guns magically vanished in America overnight, crime and violence would go down. There would be fewer murders. There would be fewer suicides. There would be no heat-of-the-moment shootings, no accidental shootings, no school shootings.

Yes, there would still be murders, and robberies, and assaults. Just less of them, because those crimes are a lot harder to pull off if you don't have a gun. Baseball bats, cars, knives -- I already addressed these deadly items in my previous post. Guns don't kill people, people kill people -- I agree. So why make it easier for people to kill people by giving them practically unfettered access to literal killing machines?

I'll address this too:

"Banning an item, just because it is misused, doesn't make sense."

Banning an item just because it is misused doesn't make sense, I agree. But banning an item if that item serves no other purpose than to kill, and that item is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans every year makes total sense. Heck, we ban LOTS of items that kill far fewer people than guns every year, and those items aren't even intended for killing. Dangerous toys, non-street-legal vehicles on public roads, Cuban cigars...

Believe it or not, I don't want to spoil your fun. I don't want to prevent you from going to the range on the weekend and shooting off a bunch of ammo with your bump stock. If that's what you're into, I have no interest in stopping you -- in fact, it actually sounds like a good time. My opposition to easy-access gun ownership doesn't stem from, "Ew, guns." It stems from, "Ew, tens of thousands of dead Americans." It stems from, "Ew, my kid had to do active shooter training in elementary school, FFS."

But, as you said at the end of your post, "I won't cover the Constitution, as this is merely a thought exercise." And there's the rub. The fact is that the Constitution, as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court, allows people in this country to buy firearms. So it doesn't really matter how much typing I do here, because guns aren't going to magically disappear, they're here to stay. Even if they're unnecessary, illogical, and the item of choice used to violently end tens of thousands of American lives every year.

You and I have a completely different perspective on the necessity of public, widespread, easy-access gun ownership, along with tools and devices that make those guns even more lethal. Just as you have your reasons for supporting it, I have reasons for opposing it. I believe that my position is far more logically sound than yours is -- your mileage may vary.

But my thought experiment is just that -- a thought experiment. I know that guns are never going to magically disappear in this country. That's not reality. And yet, I don't believe that anyone can deny that if they did, tens of thousands of American lives would be saved every year, and tens of thousands of American families wouldn't have to suffer.

You may believe that if guns disappeared tomorrow, more people would die than they do now. But that's not reality either.

[yagotme]

100. You're welcome. Nice to have a normal discourse for once.

I changed, the question, and stated why. Smugglers abound, and guns disappearing in America would have a short term effect on criminals. Guns can, and have been, stolen from military and police. Not to mention AK's being shipped in by the thousands through Long Beach Port, CA. Cars, the same, but it would be a different clientele. The uber rich would still find a way to get their fancy car, even if it was to only park it in the garage and show it off to a few select friends. Therefore, the only logical way to completely get rid of those items here, would be a world wide disappearance.

As far as consequences, economic ones would befall us if either one happened. Sport shooting is a multi million dollar industry. Conservation would suffer. A lot fewer hunting licenses would be sold, and no more money from manufacturers would go to conservatism (Pittman-Robertson Conservation Act).

As far as the cowboys go, certain towns with high instances of criminality banned carrying guns. Open range, no ban. Peaceful towns, not as much. From your link:

While people were allowed to have guns at home for self-protection, frontier towns usually barred anyone but law enforcement from carrying guns in public.

Passers-through were required to check their carry guns, but townsfolk could keep theirs in their homes. Not a total ban, then, just a ban on carrying in public.

but if guns magically vanished in America overnight, crime and violence would go down.

No, I don't believe it would. Not by much. Violence is in the heart of the actor, a gun is just one of many tools they use to accomplish their actions. People get pushed in front of subways. Bring hatchets into a McDonalds and threaten customers/damage property. This happens in a city with extremely tight gun regulation. Crime still happens.

I don't want to prevent you from going to the range on the weekend and shooting off a bunch of ammo with your bump stock.

Now, you're getting into the assumption phase. I don't own one, and wouldn't. Used one once. Don't care for it. Wastes ammo.

You and I have a completely different perspective on the necessity of public, widespread, easy-access gun ownership, along with tools and devices that make those guns even more lethal.

Can you define "easy access"? Not like going to the store and buying a can of beans. Paperwork, background check, some states have waiting periods, etc. Some people think you can buy a gun online, and have it shipped, or go to a gun show, and just walk out. If it's purchased from a dealer, at a show, he can lose his license and go to jail if he allowed that. The "mail order gun delivered" is totally false. You CAN go online, purchase a gun, but the gun has to be shipped to a local dealer, and you have to go to the dealer, fill out the form, pay a fee usually, waiting period if applicable. The only exception, is buying a rifle through the CMP. (M-1, 1903, 1917 etc.) A load of paperwork, fingerprints, providing multiple proof ID's, and a several month waiting period. It IS delivered to your door, state permitting. Most states do, AFAIK. I live in IL, and IL allows it.

And yet, I don't believe that anyone can deny that if they did, tens of thousands of American lives would be saved every year, and tens of thousands of American families wouldn't have to suffer.
You may believe that if guns disappeared tomorrow, more people would die than they do now. But that's not reality either.

Who really knows what would happen? We can guess, surmise, read the Tarot cards, but that's all it is. I can't say if there would be more deaths, the same, or less. There would be confusion and calamity for awhile, and eventually some kind of balance achieved, I would hope. Where that would fall, is anybody's guess. Unfortunately, the highest percentage of deaths is suicides, and someone that is REALLY intent on ending their life, will find a way, so I fear suicides would continue at a fairly high rate.

[SarahD]

18. Pretty sure.

If you know of another purpose, help out. Target practice? Hunting? Self defense? I do acknowledge that many people who buy such weapons and accessories use them to act out fantasies involving saving the world from hordes of criminals, etc. That's fun for them, but I don't see how owning an actual weapon customized for mass killing is necessary to their emotional need, and I certainly don't see how it violates the Second Amendment to make them stick to computer simulations. The Bill of Rights is not intended to protect every fantasy scenario dreamt up by some guy standing in front of a mirror and saying, "You talking to me?" Sure, I realize the current Supreme Court thinks that's the whole purpose of our Constitution, to protect the psyche of every incel revolutionary living in Mom's basement, but I disagree. Because I value people and their lives over abstract libertarian concepts.

[yagotme]

23. Bump stocks are the issue of the day.

USSC has determined that, the way the law is written, that they do not fall under the designation of machine gun. If someone wants to buy one, go to the range, and burn through some ammo, no one hurt, no one killed, I say, so what? Who is the determiner of what someone NEEDS here in this country? I can make a list of things that are legal, but not "needed". The illegal use of bump stocks, compared to how many are out there, is negligible, a blip.

use them to act out fantasies involving saving the world from hordes of criminals, etc.

Semi auto firearms, including the AR system, HAVE been used to stop criminal activity. Church shooting in TX was stopped/curtailed by a civilian with an AR, IIRC.

I certainly don't see how it violates the Second Amendment to make them stick to computer simulations.

The 2d is about arms, not computers or simulators. Simulators can only give you a certain amount of feedback.

The Bill of Rights is not intended to protect every fantasy scenario dreamt up by some guy standing in front of a mirror and saying, "You talking to me?"

The Bill of Rights, by name, is to protect the "rights" of the "people". Individuals. "People" is used several times throughout the document, and it seems that some individuals it means people, except when it's used in the 2d, where it means the National Guard. Strange.

[SarahD]

27. According to that logic

Installing a full auto switch in a semi auto weapon should be OK. It's just an accessory that allows me to drive out to the desert and burn through ammunition. After all, there aren't many instances where crimes are committed with guns converted to full auto.

[yagotme]

38. The flaw in that logic is, the installation of a full auto switch in a Glock,

makes it full auto. A single press of the trigger, for multiple rounds. A machine gun, per the reading of the law. That's not what a bump stock does.

[thatdemguy]

40. If the conversion device was made before 1986 and you could

afford it and the ammo to do it. Yes you can do it legally ( assuming they are legal in your state ). So yes it would be okay ( following current laws ).

As for the second part, legal full auto weapons have been used in less than 5 ( I think like actually 2 but don't know for sure ) crimes in the last 60 or 70 years. If the gun is used to rob a store or do a drive by ( or any other crime ) and is illegally converted. Its still an illegal use of the gun, semi or full auto.

How about this for you. The Scotus said that felons cant be charged be charged with illegal possession of a machine gun. And 6 of 8 of the justices on the decision were democrats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

[Zeitghost]

47. The law in question does not allow that

Any gun that fires more than one bullet per activation of the trigger is a machine gun. Any part that when added to a gun makes it fire more than one bullet per activation of the trigger is covered under the same law. So you can't install a full auto switch (auto sear).

The bump stock still retains the one bullet per trigger activation mechanism, therefore it is not covered by that law.

[Bluesaph]

66. The 2nd is not above the 1st!

People have the right to the pursuit of freedom liberty and their own happiness.

The 2nd was never meant to make people live in fear of going out and living their lives, sending their kids to school, enjoying a concert or a movie…

Where the 2nd begins to take away from the 1st is where the line is! The fact the gun lobby has brainwashed half our country doesn’t change this fact. Our country is young. We are adolescents here! And when our country finally reaches adulthood, then this era will be looked at the way we look at slavery and Jim Crow eras. With shame!

[yagotme]

72. Your title and your first sentence don't jibe.

1st sentence is from the Declaration, per se.

Want to stop living in fear? Lock habitual criminals up. A lot of crimes, especially violent, are committed by repeat offenders, some of them only serving a paltry amount of their sentences before being released. The 2d Amendment has no control over sentencing and releasing of criminals.

[oldmanlynn]

24. This seems to not recognize the future

Its not just how many have happened in recent memory. Bump stocks have been banned for 5-6 years. They weren’t created until a few years before that. Its more about the future. You dont need bump stocks for shooting cans or hunting deer. Its plain and simple designed to kill humans whether in self defense or not. Its not even a firearm but an auxiliary device so its not even covered by the second amendment.

[yagotme]

29. Magazines aren't covered, right? Ban all magazines? They're not firearms, after all...

You dont need bump stocks for shooting cans or hunting deer.

There's that word again. There's several people on this site who seem to be determined that they can dictate what someone else "needs", and if it isn't on their list, it's banned. I could make up a list, too. There's lots of things that Americans don't "need", but, hey, who "needs" freedom, right? Deer hunting is regulated by states, and the number of rounds that may be carried in the weapon. It's usually in the neighborhood of 3-5. Shooting tin cans, who cares, as long as it's done safely.

[Bluesaph]

67. Semantics much?

Replace the word “need” with utilize.

How are bump stocks utilized? What is their designed purpose? How are they relevant to the 2nd amendment anymore than say cannons, tanks, missiles? What category do they belong in? A gun? Nope. Ammo? Nope. A weapon of mass destruction? 🤔

Explain yourself.

[yagotme]

73. "Explain yourself"

Yes, master. I will try. Thank you master.

A bump stock is NOT a weapon in and of itself. It's a piece of plastic, that ATTACHES to a weapon (like a magazine) to allow the shooter to fire the ACTUAL WEAPON at a faster rate, semi automatically, than they could without the device. It's a toy. One used to throw more rounds downrange at a faster rate, but, generally, not hitting as accurately. It's a PART, like a magazine, a scope, a bipod. Not a weapon itself, but to modify the weapon to improve a certain function, legally.

ETA: You CAN "utilize" a bump stock to shoot cans. States have varying hunting regulations on deer hunting, only allowing a certain number of rounds to be carried in the weapon. With the legal number of rounds (usually 3-5), I guess you "could" utilize a bump stock to hunt deer, but the accuracy is lacking, and it wouldn't be very ethical.

[Bluesaph]

78. So ... as it's NOT a gun ...

It follows it should not be protected in any way by the 2nd. Therefore, the “2nd amendment people” as Trump calls them have no constitutional right to have this “toy” just like kids can’t walk around pointing guns at other people that look like real guns. 😉

It also follows that this “toy” is pretty stupid. “Oh I’m a bad shot so I’ll shoot my tin cans with this toy” and “I am a crappy deer hunter so I need a handicap” are LAME ASS excuses for the rest of society to carry the risk and also to have our 1st amendment trampled on because kids wanna play with a stupid toy.

[yagotme]

89. Deer hunters are limited, by law, as to how many rounds they can carry in the weapon.

Bump firing 3-5 rounds is just silly.

It also follows that this “toy” is pretty stupid.

No disagreement there. I have even stated, somewhere, that I wouldn't have one. But it's not my place to determine what "toy" one person can have, or not. As long as it is used legally (and all of the, so far, except for 1 person,) have been doing so, to the best of my knowledge. I imagine someone using one illegally would be headline news, and I don't recall any other cases coming up.

It's not a gun, it doesn't fire projectiles, it's a formed piece of plastic that ATTACHES to a gun, to increase the semi auto rate of fire, usually to the detriment of accuracy. (Firearm "attachments" are usually covered under the 2d, otherwise, the anti-gunners would be banning ALL magazines, scopes, etc., so the firearm is nearly unusable.)

and also to have our 1st amendment trampled on

Which part of the 1st are you referring to? Some redneck in the back woods shooting up tin cans with a bump stock infringes on you how??

have no constitutional right to have this “toy” just like kids can’t walk around pointing guns at other people that look like real guns

Having a bump stock is now legal, going around pointing real or look-alike guns at people is not. Want to outlaw bump stocks? Change the law. That's why we're here now, the law said "this constitutes a machine gun", and the bump stock didn't fit the criteria.

[Bluesaph]

99. It will be used to kill. That's its purpose. It's not a toy.

I was being facetious in calling it a toy. Although we do regulate gun toys as my example of the fake gun. We can regulate bump stocks as well and be smart and do it before another idiot uses it to kill a bunch of people. I think my first amendment right to pursue my happiness by not having my grandkids go to school and be subjects of the next bump stock shooting. My right to go to a concert at Mandalay Bay as I’ve done many times. My right to go anywhere really without fear of some moron firing into a crowd I’m in. You seem smart. So how can you not see this?

You seem to be saying: It’s a stupid toy and it’s not a gun and it’s not covered by the 2nd and it’s already been used for mass murder but since it only happened one time, that’s ok. We can just wait until it happens again…and again… and again…

[yagotme]

101. Thousands were made. Some 3-D printed.

You think they all got tossed when the ban came about? They're out there, and NOT being used to kill, therefore, not fulfilling their true "purpose", according to you. Perhaps law abiding citizens just want it to goof off with? Legally. I don't have a problem with that. No harm, no foul. PEOPLE do the killing. The instrument is but a tool, to accomplish the deed.

You seem to be saying: It’s a stupid toy and it’s not a gun and it’s not covered by the 2nd and it’s already been used for mass murder but since it only happened one time, that’s ok.

Vehicles have been used for mass murder more than once. And knives. And pressure cookers. Let's ban everything, so the children can grow up safe.

[Bluesaph]

102. You need some better arguments.

The same tired arguments don’t solve any discussion.

[yagotme]

103. I agree.

"They're designed to kill." is getting pretty worn out, when there's only 1 instance of them being used, ON A WEAPON, to kill.

[Bluesaph]

104. They were outlawed after that once incidence.

And how many instances pray tell will make them qualify as a dangerous toy?

I remember when kids played with real looking guns until we realized it was a bad idea

[yagotme]

105. The ATF looked at them more than once before Vegas, and declared them legal.

Drumph pushed for the ban after Vegas, and the ATF changed it's mind. Now the USSC has clarified the problem, recommending a law be passed against them specifically, if they are to be banned. Like the system is supposed to.

[Bluesaph]

106. Now you're changing the argument.

I am pro banning them. You?

[yagotme]

107. No, I'm stating factual history.

You took one example out of a timeline. I stated the whole timeline. That's not changing the argument. I personally don't care if they're banned or not, they are NOT an actual weapon, and like anything else, they can be used properly, or improperly. I personally wouldn't have one, but that's MY preference. I personally wouldn't want an electric car, for various reasons, but if someone else wants one, go for it. I'm for personal choice. I have no desire to smoke pot, but if it's legal where you are, and you want to do it, and can do it safely, go for it. It has no effect on me. Personal freedom, baby, that's where it's at. As long as no one else is affected by your actions, you do you. If you do it illegally, and someone else suffers, then you go to jail. ("You" being an all-encompassing word, not directed at "you" personally.)

[Bluesaph]

108. I'm all for personal liberty too. But not on stupid toys.

Bump stocks is a stupid toy that can easily lead to deaths.

[yagotme]

109. Bump stocks are NOT weapons. It's the weapon that fires.

And the human that does the aiming and killing. Like I posted earlier, anything can be misused, causing death. I'm not for banning everything that can cause deaths, just because it could cause deaths.

[SarahD]

50. Good news.

Not cover covered by the Second Amendment. So we can ban them and the Supremes can't rule one way or the other. But they did, so how did they do that?

[MichMan]

51. Yes, as I understand the SC ruling, if Congress passes legislation banning them it would.

Given they have not done so, they aren't prohibited by current laws

[Melon]

58. Bump stocks are for target practice and wasting ammo

In practice, they are not easy to use and take practice to even get them to work correctly. You couldn’t get one to work in a drive buy or robbery for instance. You need to be prone or at least on a bench. It’s why criminals never use them. They are not a criminally used feature for firearms. Criminals are using illegal switches in glocks to make them full auto.

[LuckyCharms]

79. Don't you think that once in Las Vegas was enough?

[yagotme]

86. One incident.

A person drives a cargo truck down the street, during a celebration, intentionally. Do we ban trucks now??? Casualties were pretty high, enough to meet the level of a ban???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack

On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19-tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds of people celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people[n 1] and the injury of 434 others

.

520 total casualties, one vehicle, one incident. We need to ban cargo trucks before it happens here.

[LuckyCharms]

88. You are very hard over on this issue.

Good for you man, good for you. Fight the good fight.

[yagotme]

91. USSC made a ruling. I looked at the law, have knowledge about how bump stocks work,

and agree with it. Some here are hard about the USSC actually making a decision based on rule of law. I don't want a court that "reads" interpretations and wording into a law that is just not there. I present facts, and when it's an opinion, I usually try to state so. My "followers" have said I'm pushing fairy tales, and 1 has actually inferred/said I'm a liar, twice. When asked for a specific cite, they waffle, and say I already know, and refuse to provide one. Where's the civility here? I'm not the one "fighting", I'm just presenting my thoughts. Others seem to want to turn it into a "fight".

[LuckyCharms]

92. That's nice. n/t

[yagotme]

93. Thank you.

Happy you approve.

[LuckyCharms]

94. You wouldn't be happy if you knew what I am thinking. n/t

[yagotme]

95. Now, now, let's be nice.

This is supposed to be a civil board...

[LuckyCharms]

96. Of course. n/t

[Dave says]

11. Umm, it's a consequence of the decision

Gawd, rightwingers can make our heads spin around. First, we have SCOTUS majority that holds up the original intent of Constitutional and legal texts as the foundation of freedom here in the USA — until it’s inconvenient. Then they scurry around and quote witchburners from the sixteenth century to justify legislating from the bench. They are hypocrites, all. Every single Republican bloviator (which is every one of them once they open their mouths).

Read Sotomayor’s dissent. Perfect! Can’t wait until we have 13 on the SCOTUS and term limits. Either that or we continue to drown in their muck.

My “excerpt” is Sotomayor’s dissent.

[yagotme]

12. She said that? Really? I'd like to read that... nt

[Kingofalldems]

13. Disrespect.

[yagotme]

14. Who? What? Where?

A statement was presented, one that I haven't seen, so I asked for a cite. I see this all the time here. It's been asked of me. Your one word post leaves a lot to be read into. I could only guess, since no specifics were presented...

[Kingofalldems]

17. You gave a smart aleck answer to the poster.

You think this is a joke or something?

[yagotme]

20. Stated I hadn't viewed the statement in question.

Believed the poster made a smart aleck comment themselves, so I asked for a cite. Are you on smart aleck watch today, or just me? I get snarky comments a lot, and don't expect someone else to come and white knight me. I'm an adult, and can take it.

[canuckledragger]

22. someone obviously CAN'T handle having their derailment attempts questioned!

[yagotme]

25. Talking about OP subject equals derailment.

I'll have to remember that.

[canuckledragger]

30. no, pushing propaganda, hyperbole and lies equals derailment.

someone gaslighting pretending to be a victim when derailment attempts are questioned is just pathetic.

[yagotme]

41. I'll have to remember that when someone posts something not factual here.

And, a victim? Where did I claim to be wounded by this? If you're referring to the one word response to one of my posts, well, read the whole sub thread, then tell me what you think, if YOU were the one called out.

[canuckledragger]

42. then try to remeber it for your next post if you don't want to look silly.

and yes, YOU were definitely called out, numerous times by many people. doesn't matter ho much you gaslight over that.

[yagotme]

44. Yes, when I reply to a silly post from now on, I'll try not to look silly.

Won't worry about providing cites, either. I'll just say you were already cited, and just keep saying it.

[canuckledragger]

45. then try telling the truth.

and maybe you won't look so silly or get so upset when fairy tales are confronted for what they are.

[yagotme]

49. I'd ask to cite where I lied, but I already know what you're going to say... nt

[canuckledragger]

56. And we know that someone will gaslight and lie regardless.

[Hekate]

59. Well spotted, canuckledragger

Somebody has been a very busy boy today

[yagotme]

71. Yes, someone has been busy following me around the board.

Very busy. Hardly have time to read the threads, spend most of it replying to hecklers.

[canuckledragger]

81. Yes, someone has been running wild pushing a lot of propaganda and bad-faith arguments.

And some of those folks can't handle any kind of criticism at all.

[yagotme]

84. Yup, and I counter that propaganda as best I can.

I'm sorry some of them are hurt by my presentation of facts, but facts are facts.

[canuckledragger]

87. and when questioned, some just double down on the lies and propaganda.

and get VERY triggered when exposed.

[yagotme]

90. I know what you mean. I've seen that a lot lately.

Some of those replying to me seem to get upset, but it's just a discussion. It's not like I'm personally threatening them or anything, they just seem to be disturbed by my opinion and fact presentation. Perhaps they don't like facts. Especially when it counters their own ideals.

[yagotme]

70. 2d time you've called me a liar.

Not very civil of you.

[canuckledragger]

80. Someone thinks it's all about them.

That's pretty arrogant. Not very civil of you.

[yagotme]

83. When you are replying to me, and infer/directly say I'm lying, well, I guess that DOES make it about me.

You don't want to refute my facts, or cite where I "lied", YOU are the one making it all about me. A discussion of facts is one thing, harassement of a pster, is another. You have a strange notion of "civility", and what constitutes arrogance.

Someone thinks it's all about them.
That's pretty arrogant. Not very civil of you.

For posterity, just in case.

[Irish_Dem]

28. How about this: Gun violence is the leading cause of death for American children.

And the Supreme Court is actively enabling those deaths.
Blood on their hands.

The SC makes it a fundamental right to kill these children.

[TexasDem69]

32. You say this every time the Supreme Court issues a decision

Repeating a wrong thing many times doesn’t make it right.

[yagotme]

39. How many children are killed by bump stocks yearly? Is there even a number, other that Las Vegas?

The SC makes it a fundamental right to kill these children.

Cite?

[canuckledragger]

43. gun violence apologists are pathetic.

[yagotme]

46. Name calling now. You're really sinking low.

How about answering the question, or would you look "silly" doing that??? I mean, you jumped in the sub thread, dropped a name, and didn't address the question. Not exactly "proper" now, is it???

[canuckledragger]

55. boy, gun violence apologists get angry when their propaganda and gaslighting are called out!

[Hekate]

61. They are very sensitive people, after all

[canuckledragger]

65. yes, some tend to alert on others here when their comments are disputed.

and go from legend in their own minds to victims in a split second.

[yagotme]

68. I have NEVER alerted on a post here. I have been tempted, though.

I figure if someone wants to call me names, a liar, I'll let it stand, so everyone else can see their post.

[yagotme]

69. It's my understanding that this is a civil discussion board.

Some here aren't being very civil, calling personal names, and saying someone's not telling the truth, and when asked which is the offending post to them, they say "Oh, you know, somebody else called you out on it" and never give an actual answer. Not very civil, in my opinion. I don't do alerts, though I've been tempted, I figure if someone wants to be that way, I'll let everyone see it.

[Zeitghost]

48. It's not the job of the courts

To solve gun violence problems in our society. That falls upon Congress.

They didn't rule that we had a fundamental right to bump stocks. They said the laws passed by Congress did not cover bump stocks, which they very clearly do not.

Bump stocks could be used in every murder in the country and it still doesn't give the court the power to outlaw them. Congress has dropped the ball here, not the courts.

[Skittles]

2. gun humpers seem to love calling themselves PRO-LIFE

fuck those COWARDS

[Hekate]

63. I'm having a flashback...

I wish you could give them an ass-kicking, Skittles. I don’t know about you, but I’d feel better, yes I would.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

5. There are a lot of psychopaths

And narcissists in this country our culture was built on the abuse of people. Our economy is abusive . Abuse is like the social cement in this country so many people operate out of trauma. Scared adult children want a strongman, enablers who think blowing smoke up a narcissists ass is normal then you got the Christian zealots and control freaks.

Our country is violent narcissistic and traumatized. There are people that are not traumatized but have difficulty understanding what trauma does to a person’s mind and body and how it warps the worldview.

[Kingofalldems]

7. And the gunners are out trolling all over GD

about what a great decision this was.

[Skittles]

8. well of course

justification is part of the gun humping sickness

[TexasDem69]

33. Where has anyone said it was a "great" decision?

I’ve seen posts saying it was the right decision as a legal matter but that’s a lot different.

[Kingofalldems]

35. Don't have to say it

The massive number of posts are enough to send the message.

And there is a 0% chance I am wrong.

[TexasDem69]

36. So zero evidence to support your argument

I can make up shit too but try to avoid it. Have you read the opinion? It barely mentions the 2d Amendment and certainly doesn’t say that bump stocks are protected by the Constitution. The opinion is sound but people are up in arms because they wrongly equate gun ownership with the right wing. This opinion doesn’t even really have anything to do with the right to own a firearm

[usonian]

9. Why Putin subverted the NRA

To increase violence in the USA and mob rule over democracy.
Period.
I don't know how and when this started, but he's the main beneficiary.
Let Americans kill Americans.
Saves him the trouble, the troops, the landing ships and the blame.

"See, they killed each other off"
The agent is back in Russia, and IIRC, in the Duma.

[onecaliberal]

10. Yup. If we can.

[Gaugamela]

15. It's human sacrifice that validates the sacred importance

of their guns freedom. They might as well be throwing virgins into a volcano, but of course they’re “christians”.

[Irish_Dem]

26. The US regularly kills its citizens to appease the gun gods.

Same as ancient people throwing women and children into volcanoes to appease their gods.

[applegrove]

31. Gun deaths happen because the GOP and Movement

Last edited Sat Jun 15, 2024, 01:02 AM - Edit history (2)

Conservatives want Americans to be more cold hearted. Nothing better than children dying a horrible death to accomplish passivity in the face of heinous crimes than fighting to increase the incidence of them.

[TexasDem69]

34. Do you really believe this?

You don’t think gun deaths happen because some person who sucks decides to shoot another person?

[applegrove]

37. I'm talking about the people behind the people who don't want reasonable gun regulation.

Look what they did with bumpstocks today. The Vegas shooter had bumpstocks. Experts say you can tell by the rapidfire sound of guns when victims recorded him shooting. If you want more Vegas... make bumpstocks legal. Another 75 person massacre will happen and people will some how accept death is always possible and it will not be mitigated against by government.

[MichMan]

52. And the vast majority of gun deaths are caused by handguns

While we argue about bump stocks and the Vegas shooting, there will be twice that many killed by handguns every single week.

Banning bump stocks would have zero effect on those.

[applegrove]

53. But it would stop an event, where 60 people died, 500 injured,

and thousands more traumatized, from happening again?

[Kaleva]

54. Most likely it wouldn't have stopped the event

He would have used semiautos with high capacity magazines that weren't equipped with bump stocks like almost all other mass shooters who used rifles do.

[applegrove]

57. But the rate of fire during the Vegas shooting was much greater than

an AR 15. AR 15 type weapons should be banned too. Like Biden said that today.

They had an expert on, I think CNN, who said that from the video at the Vegas massacre that caught the sound of the gunfire and it was definitely a bumpstock because the shots were was so fast.

[MichMan]

64. Again, only a miniscule percentage of gun deaths can be attributed to either AR15 or bump stops

Last edited Sat Jun 15, 2024, 07:04 AM - Edit history (1)

Having a mandatory 3 year prison sentence for anyone breaking current gun laws would be more effective.

The Michigan State University shooter was caught on a bicycle with an illegal gun and his sentence was plead down to illegally carrying a firearm in a vehicle (what vehicle?). Later he was shooting in his back yard in a residential neighborhood, police were called by neighbors, and they did nothing, because the local prosecutor's policy was to not charge people with stand alone gun crimes. His subsequent campus shooting spree was with a handgun, killing several and terrorizing the campus.

A University of Michigan football player was caught with a concealed handgun during a traffic stop (a felony) and the fan boy prosecutor elected to bury the issue because there were big games coming up. Charges were not filed, he was not suspended by the university and was allowed to play. He was later given probation and the promise his record will be expunged afterwards.

[Hekate]

62. I guess we are just helpless beings and there is nothing that can be done

[yagotme]

77. Sure. Lock up lawbreakers.

There's enough laws on the books to lock up repeat offenders, who re generally the most likely to commit violent crimes. A few years for 2d degree murder or rape? No big deal. They'll still be young enough to out and commit more crime, perhaps even worse.

[Hekate]

60. Our national gun fetish is a self-inflicted form of domestic terrorism

The Gun God demands blood sacrifices daily, and often, the blood sacrifice of our children

[C_U_L8R]

76. They can't win on the strength of their ideas

So they resort to gun-toting threats and tantrums.
They are the very definition of losers.

[Iggo]

98. Yep, we're violent, with our black clothes and our grey cars.

We’re becoming the Sardaukar.