who else is afraid donald trump will get elected?

[trdsf]

Well, the Supreme Court's not taking up the Chicago assault weapon ban despite previous rulings overturning handgun bans.  Looks like they're tacking towards a line between reasonable self defense, and unreasonable levels of firepower.  It'd be nice to live in a world where people didn't feel the need to be armed, but we don't live in that world, so you just gotta get as close to common sense as you can.

Senator Sanders (who is no friend of gun control) has an approach that makes sense to me, grounded in the fact that the urban and rural communities perceive guns very differently, and that both sides are going to have to give a little to come to any sort of solution, and both extremes--absolute ban and absolutely anything goes--are untenable.

[Hydra009]

I don't trust the government enough to say that guns should be banned. If you think the actions of the government are fucked up now, wait until they have absolutely zero incentive to not just completely put the boot down on the people's throats.

"I can't wait to finally kick down Americans' doors and really lay the smack down on fellow Americans.  But only after they enact strict gun control measures."  - a Marine, probably

[widdershins]

"I can't wait to finally kick down Americans' doors and really lay the smack down on fellow Americans.  But only after they enact strict gun control measures."  - a Marine, probably

I'm pretty sure I can take them so long as I have an assault rifle and 30 round clip.  It is, after all, only about 11 times the military force of the next biggest military force on the planet.  I just need a crapload of AKs (only one of which I can fire at any given time) and it's easy peasy.

By the way, I played paintball once with 2 ex-marines.  Guess which 2 guys battled it out alone after everyone else went down.  Go on.  Guess.

[Gerard]

"Yes, but if the public at large is (heavily) armed, then mass shootings could be prevented."
Wouldn't that be nice. Did it ever happen by the way?

Gerard

[Baruch]

"Yes, but if the public at large is (heavily) armed, then mass shootings could be prevented."
Wouldn't that be nice. Did it ever happen by the way?

Gerard

Open carry by White skinheads with Nazi symbols ... will keep the peace ... sort of.  Just put Blackwater in charge, like Hillary did at the State Department ;-(

[FaithIsFilth]

Lame. I voted for someone far, far more liberal than who you're going to vote for, Widdershins, or who you'll ever vote for, I'm anti-war, all about peace, and have never touched a gun in my life, yet you can't help throwing out your childish second grade insults calling me a nutjob. Good one.

You defend the mainstream media. I guess I shouldn't be surprised there. You express no concern with media people saying guns should be banned for those who question the government's official stories. You express no concern with these people being called terrorists. Instead, you defend the media and say they are right to smear anti-government people. Do you honestly think the media is talking about these people just for shits and giggles? Do you think some Western leaders are calling them terrorists just for shits and giggles? That sure seems to be your position. If you really think that, you are extremely gullible. Now, I didn't say I agree with 9/11 truthers about bombs in the WTC, and that's not what this is about. They are smearing people who question the government as terrorists, and in some cases the media is saying these people are too nuts to have guns. Would you agree that these people are too nuts to have guns, or no, because you didn't really make it clear in your post? The point is that they are smearing anti-government people in general, and trying to convince the public that these anti-government people should be looked at as more dangerous than the average Joe. Forget about 9/11 or Sandy Hook for the moment. We're talking about stuff like questioning what's really going on in Syria (Mainstream media won't tell you what's really going on and neither will the White House). What is the end game? Is it to ban people that are "too anti-government" from having guns? I don't know. It could be.

Let's go back to the bombs in the WTC thing. So what if someone thinks there were bombs in there? That doesn't make this person a physical threat. Truthers are usually against the wars going on. Why is it that someone who is anti-war would be looked at as any kind of significant threat? Militias or people with rifles are not who you have to fear. You should fear your own government. Those who are anti-war should not be looked at as our enemy.

Where did you ever get the impression that I think US citizens with rifles are going to defeat the US Army militarily? It seems like all you have is arguing against points that were not even made, throwing out childish insults, and talking about common sense this and common sense that. Giving up rights is never common sense. 3000 people died on 9/11. You ban ALL rifles, which is something even you are not calling for (right?), and  it's going to take 15 long years to save just 3000 lives. Honestly, I respect the argument that all guns should be banned more than I do the argument that just assault rifles or certain assault rifles should be banned. At least the people calling for the ban of all guns are actually calling for something that would make quite the difference. Why are you not in favour of banning all handguns? The majority of gun deaths are by handguns. Rifles account for a tiny, tiny percentage of gun deaths. I'll use your own words here since you like to throw them around so much. Isn't it just "common sense" to ban all handguns? Isn't the Patriot Act "common sense"? Americans need to be kept safe from the Muslims and white anti-government terrorists afterall, right? What if the government announced that because of the Patriot Act, they estimate that they have saved 200 lives annually? Would that mean that the Patriot Act is awesome and completely justified? What about stop and frisk? Better safe than sorry, right? A black guy with a gun he shouldn't be holding could very well get into a gun fight and children can (and do all the time) die in the crossfire. Why do you care so much about the children that die in mass shootings, but don't have that same concern for the children that die via handguns? Where is your common sense? Do you have no common sense?

As far as you asking how Obama ripped up the Constitution, do I really have to explain this? Ramped up NSA spying is not ripping up the Constitution even further? More wars with no Congressional approval is respecting the Constitution? Drone striking American citizens with no trial? I'll stop there.

Edit - Just looked up the numbers and they are lower than I thought. 248 murders by rifle in 2014 in the US. Ban all rifles and you save what, 150 lives maybe and that is being generous? You don't want to ban all rifles though. Only ban the rifles that the government is worried about? How many lives do you save then? Somewhere around 100 lives? One hundred people out of a country of 300,000,000? At that rate of saving lives, it will take 30 years to get to 3000 lives saved. So yeah, you can go on about common sense this and common sense that, but the only way you are going to make a real difference is by doing something about handguns. Handguns should be your concern.

[Baruch]

Young people think that Hitler was a liberal (National SOCIALIST Party OMG!) ... because Cheney.  They have even forgotten the editorial cartoon where Darth Vader commented about Dick Cheney ... "Now that is scary".  The American collective memory is only good for 3 months at best.

Yes, except for those hippie kids and Scoobydoo ... we would still be killing $&%^$ in the rice paddies of Vietnam, just as G-d intended.  Amen!

Questioning the official narrative ... going back to FDR and Pearl Harbor ... that is dangerous.  And people here think they are skeptics?

[widdershins]

Lame. I voted for someone far, far more liberal than who you're going to vote for, Widdershins, or who you'll ever vote for...

You see, this is why I can't take you seriously.  Unless you have my voting record right in front of you then you can't possibly know that.  It's just one more wild claim without the slightest backing.

...I'm anti-war, all about peace, and have never touched a gun in my life, yet you can't help throwing out your childish second grade insults calling me a nutjob. Good one.

That wasn't specifically aimed at you, and if it came off that way I apologize.  And the term was "nutbag", not "nutjob".  9/11 "truthers" piss me off.  It's a slap in the face to the victims and survivors of that terrible incident and to those still suffering today to get a boner over some wild conspiracy involving our government doing it on purpose.  We know who's responsible.  They took responsibility for it.  They bragged about it.  And to propagate wild conspiracy theories for your own self-amusement disrespects those who were hurt by it and puts their very real pain second to the "truthers'" need to feel important by having some "secret knowledge".  It's nothing more than a religion without a god.

You defend the mainstream media. I guess I shouldn't be surprised there. You express no concern with media people saying guns should be banned for those who question the government's official stories. You express no concern with these people being called terrorists. Instead, you defend the media and say they are right to smear anti-government people. Do you honestly think the media is talking about these people just for shits and giggles? Do you think some Western leaders are calling them terrorists just for shits and giggles? That sure seems to be your position. If you really think that, you are extremely gullible. Now, I didn't say I agree with 9/11 truthers about bombs in the WTC, and that's not what this is about. They are smearing people who question the government as terrorists, and in some cases the media is saying these people are too nuts to have guns. Would you agree that these people are too nuts to have guns, or no, because you didn't really make it clear in your post?

I'm going to stop there, because I really don't know what you're talking about.  What is an "anti-government person"?  Someone who is arming themselves in case the government attacks?  Yes, THOSE people are too nuts to have guns because their too nuts to know that if the government ever did attack there is nothing you could do about it and too nuts to know the "government" isn't this hive-mind of officials and military personnel which will do whatever "it" wants.  We are talking about individual people being ordered to fire on individual people and choosing for themselves whether this is right.  "The government" is not a big, all powerful black box with a single mind.  It is millions of individuals.  Yes, some are corrupt and power hungry.  Yes, some would follow if ordered to attack their own.  I would bet that most would not, and yes, I would bet my life on that.  People, in general, are good, not bloodthirsty.

The point is that they are smearing anti-government people in general, and trying to convince the public that these anti-government people should be looked at as more dangerous than the average Joe.

If we're talking about gun hoarders with doomsday bunkers, I don't know that I disagree with that.

Forget about 9/11 or Sandy Hook for the moment. We're talking about stuff like questioning what's really going on in Syria (Mainstream media won't tell you what's really going on and neither will the White House). What is the end game? Is it to ban people that are "too anti-government" from having guns? I don't know. It could be.

It "could be"...so let's act like it is!  This fear of the "mainstream media" is very Limbaugh of you.  You do know that the Internet lets you get a lot more information, including information from other countries, right?  American media is less information than, say, the BBC on some issues.  That's why you go to a variety of sources.  Hell, I don't even bother with The Huffington Post anymore because, while the news is accurate and informative, it is very left-leaning and I don't want biased news, I want news, which is supposed to be impartial.

But back to the argument at hand, while it may be convenient for your argument to ignore the facts (except the ones you post, of course), no, I do not agree to ignore the facts.  Sandy Hook happened.  Your government taking over what it already controls conspiracy, that hasn't.  We need to address the threats that are undeniably real and you don't get to ignore those threats because you perceive a bigger threat for which there is no evidence.  Now, I'm sure you have tons of "evidence" which is enough to convince you, but the reality is there is none.  Most of what you're arguing here is one giant "what if" slippery slope argument.  All the "evidence" you've presented is "look what they've done in the past that was NOT turning the armed forces on its own citizens.  That's pretty bad!"  Yes, the government has done bad things many, many times.  But none of those things even remotely resembled turning the armed forces on the populace.  Nothing even close to that has ever happened (unless you're a 9/11 "truther", in which case there's a whole lot of other bad and misconstrued "evidence" we need to talk about).  And the media is making the vaguely defined "anti-government" group look bad.  Oh my!  People in the media think a person stockpiling guns to protect themselves from a government invasion on the lands they already control are unstable!  Well, so do I, I'm not in the media and I didn't get that opinion from the media.  I do not see that fear and behavior as "normal", "healthy" or "stable".  I have heard of people with similar beliefs using those guns.  As far as the Branch Davidians were concerned the government WAS attacking.  Except they had a legal and legitimate search warrant.  The wackos at Waco attacked the government, not the other way around.  And THAT is why I think this way of thinking is unnatural and dangerous.  If you see the bogeyman in the face of every ATF agent when he comes knocking with a search warrant for perfectly legitimate reasons you're going to shoot him in the face because you've worked yourself up into a frenzy about how the government is out to get you, so if they ever show up, even for legitimate reasons, you automatically assume it's an attack and act in kind, murdering innocent people just there to do the same job they've done every day of their careers.

I don't think we're ever going to agree on this.  You have beliefs, I need facts.  That's just the way it is.  I find your belief that the government is out to get you irrational and, frankly, mentally unhealthy.  Do I think you're going to go crazy and shoot a bunch of people?  No, I don't think you're going to set out to do that.  BUT, if some government officials were to show up at your door there is every chance you will see it as the attack you seem so sure is coming and "defend yourself" from ordinary people doing their jobs, which very much does not include beating you down.

Let's go back to the bombs in the WTC thing. So what if someone thinks there were bombs in there? That doesn't make this person a physical threat. Truthers are usually against the wars going on. Why is it that someone who is anti-war would be looked at as any kind of significant threat? Militias or people with rifles are not who you have to fear. You should fear your own government. Those who are anti-war should not be looked at as our enemy.

Anyone who tells lies, spreading discord and furthering the suffering of 9/11 survivors just so that they can feel super-special pretending that they have some secret knowledge is my "enemy" as far as I'm concerned.  Anyone who spread ignorance in place of reason is an "enemy" to the people and common sense.  And do you think it stops with 9/11 conspiracies?  If one person hears and believes some 9/11 conspiracy bullshit, do you think that's where it stops for them?  Now they don't trust the government.  Now they've accepted "some random jackass on the Internet" is more trustworthy.  And now they come across some random jackass on the Internet who tells them that vaccinating their kids will give them autism.  And now kids start dying from preventable diseases.  9/11 "truthers" are very much a problem, stuck so far up their own asses that they have no concern whatsoever for the very real damage they cause.  Spreading this bullshit isn't just spreading "theories" about what "really" happened on 9/11.  It's spreading general discord and distrust, which causes specific harms in other, seemingly unrelated areas in much the same way that the intelligent design "just a theory" bullshit has caused a general mistrust of science allowing people to "safely" ignore climate science, which could be the death of us all, AND vaccine science.  These fanciful fairy tales spread as some kind of secret truth do real harm.

Where did you ever get the impression that I think US citizens with rifles are going to defeat the US Army militarily?

From the fact that you seem to be arguing that the reason we need the "good guns" is to protect ourselves from "the government", which, presumably, would include military forces.  Or are we talking a general overthrow of the government?  Because I'm pretty sure that's actually illegal, one of the few free speech exceptions and the view of people who hate democracy and Republicans, who believe an election is only "fair" if they one and "democracy" means all Republicans, all the time.

It seems like all you have is arguing against points that were not even made, throwing out childish insults, and talking about common sense this and common sense that. Giving up rights is never common sense.

Christians just lost the right to persecute homosexuals when it came to marriage and spousal benefits.  Giving up those rights was common sense.  About 200 years ago plantation owners lost the right to own people.  Giving up that right was common sense.  So while saying, Giving up rights is never common sense" SOUNDS good and right, it's ultimately meaningless and very, very wrong.  Sometimes people have rights they never should have had in the first place.

As for the childish insults, that was not my intention.  Just speaking my mind.  Again, if I insulted you, I apologize.  It was not intentional.  I sometimes get...passionate when I debate.

3000 people died on 9/11. You ban ALL rifles, which is something even you are not calling for (right?)...

Not right.  Ban guns specifically designed to kill people.  Guns designed to kill animals or clay targets, I'm okay with.  But I question the mental stability of one who wants a gun designed to kill people and, personally, I think that's a fair assessment.

...and  it's going to take 15 long years to save just 3000 lives.

So?  There were more mass shootings this year than days in the year.  Many of them were children.  I value a single child's life more than I value the right to make my dick feel bigger.

Honestly, I respect the argument that all guns should be banned more than I do the argument that just assault rifles or certain assault rifles should be banned. At least the people calling for the ban of all guns are actually calling for something that would make quite the difference.

That's not what the results from a similar ban in Australia shows.  Real, actual data does not support your belief.

Why are you not in favour of banning all handguns? The majority of gun deaths are by handguns. Rifles account for a tiny, tiny percentage of gun deaths.

Again, guns designed to kill people are what I am against, as well as common sense gun laws including background checks and mandatory gun safety training, perhaps with regular licensing just like you have to do with a driver's license, except with a test you must pass each time you renew the license.  I just read an article the other day about a man who cleaned his shotgun, loaded it, set it on his lap, facing his baby's crib, went to stand up and blew his baby away.  Most gun deaths are caused by stupid people who have no business owning a gun.  You should have to prove you're not an idiot to own one just like you have to prove you're at least not too much of an idiot to drive a car.

I'll use your own words here since you like to throw them around so much. Isn't it just "common sense" to ban all handguns? Isn't the Patriot Act "common sense"? Americans need to be kept safe from the Muslims and white anti-government terrorists afterall, right? What if the government announced that because of the Patriot Act, they estimate that they have saved 200 lives annually? Would that mean that the Patriot Act is awesome and completely justified? What about stop and frisk? Better safe than sorry, right? A black guy with a gun he shouldn't be holding could very well get into a gun fight and children can (and do all the time) die in the crossfire. Why do you care so much about the children that die in mass shootings, but don't have that same concern for the children that die via handguns? Where is your common sense? Do you have no common sense?

Nice false equivalency argument there.  You can have "common sense" gun laws without abandoning the Second Amendment altogether, and neither has anything to do with the Patriot Act, Muslims, stop and frisk or your slippery slope argument.  You're trying to equate a ban on assault rifles with blatant rights violations.  The two are not the same.  The Second Amendment says you have the "right to bear arms".  It does not spell out which arms you have the right to bear.  And I know that's the only part of it you like to hear, but it actually starts with WHY you have the right to bear arms, because of the need for a well regulated militia, which is no longer a need.  And you're switching the topic again from mass shootings back to gun deaths in general, which only shows the need for MORE gun regulations, again, to prove you're not an idiot before you can get a gun.

As far as you asking how Obama ripped up the Constitution, do I really have to explain this? Ramped up NSA spying is not ripping up the Constitution even further? More wars with no Congressional approval is respecting the Constitution? Drone striking American citizens with no trial? I'll stop there.

How would I know what you're talking about unless you explain it?  The increased NSA spying, I'll give you that.  The "wars" are within his rights as President.  The drone striking of American citizens is no different than the drone striking of any other terrorist.  A terrorist is a terrorist, no matter what country his is a citizen of.

Edit - Just looked up the numbers and they are lower than I thought. 248 murders by rifle in 2014 in the US. Ban all rifles and you save what, 150 lives maybe and that is being generous? You don't want to ban all rifles though. Only ban the rifles that the government is worried about? How many lives do you save then? Somewhere around 100 lives? One hundred people out of a country of 300,000,000? At that rate of saving lives, it will take 30 years to get to 3000 lives saved. So yeah, you can go on about common sense this and common sense that, but the only way you are going to make a real difference is by doing something about handguns. Handguns should be your concern.

Again, people don't need guns designed to kill people.  What is the purpose of owning such a gun?  Because the purpose of the gun is to kill people.  And, of course, never once did I say banning all the "good guns" (whatever that means) that the "government is worried about" (whatever THAT means) would solve all the problems with gun deaths.  We also need common-sense gun laws.  Background checks, licensing, etc.  These are things more than 80% of the country wants.  In a democracy that SHOULD mean these are things we have.

[GreatLife]

Not right.  Ban guns specifically designed to kill people.  Guns designed to kill animals or clay targets, I'm okay with.  But I question the mental stability of one who wants a gun designed to kill people and, personally, I think that's a fair assessment.

You don't see the folly in this statement?

I am a hunter...  I once prepared for a hunting trip for Grizzly.  I went through about 10 different rifles before I settled on one that would do the job.

That gun will EASILY kill a human at 500 yards.  It looks the same as all the other rifles out there.  This things was considered barely enough for a grizzly.  You trying to tell me that a govt regulator knows better than me what I am comfortable with in a hunting scenario like that?  I guarantee there is no difference between a gun "designed" to kill a human and a grizzly... the differences exist in how you use the weapon only - and you can't legislate intent. 

In other words, how in the world is what you just stated going to come about in the real world?  It is fine to theorize about guns... but reality is much different.  I can easily take a semi-automatic weapon and turn it full auto in about 10 minutes with the right tools - how is this keeping automatic weapons out of terrorist hands.  I can also get a milling machine and produce my own actions... no need to register anything... or even pay attention to gun laws.

And I will state, the second amendment was not put in place to protect my rights as a hunter - but instead as a check against government tyranny.  Govt has now grown to the point where any one gun will not matter in this regard - so do we discard the second amendment?  Or do we expand it like the gun lobby wants us to to restore its original intent - to keep the citizenry armed and the government in check?  If the govt uses automatic rifles, then the people must be allowed to in order to maintain parity.  If the government has bear cats - then private citizens also have the right to anti-personnel equipment.  My views don't go this far... but some I know do.  I would take the bearcats AWAY from the cops - not give then to civilians.

I am a farmer and can get a nearly unlimited supply of diesel fuel and the right fertilizers - these are far, far more dangerous than an automatic rifle.  And yet easier to get than a gun and certainly far easier to steal - it lies in huge, unguarded piles all over the midwest - why no bitching about this? A well placed bomb will make an automatic rifle seem quaint.  Just look at the difference between OK City and San Bernardino.

As a people, we oftentimes ignore the obvious and keep our eyes focused on bright shiny objects... much to our detriment.  Though politicians love this fact as it makes their job easier...

[Gerard]

The Donald's recent comments (potentially) gave his Republican opponents a weapon that might enable them to unite against him. Let's see if they're up to that. I have my hopes / doubts.....

Gerard

[widdershins]

You don't see the folly in this statement?

I am a hunter...  I once prepared for a hunting trip for Grizzly.  I went through about 10 different rifles before I settled on one that would do the job.

That gun will EASILY kill a human at 500 yards.  It looks the same as all the other rifles out there.  This things was considered barely enough for a grizzly.  You trying to tell me that a govt regulator knows better than me what I am comfortable with in a hunting scenario like that?  I guarantee there is no difference between a gun "designed" to kill a human and a grizzly... the differences exist in how you use the weapon only - and you can't legislate intent.

I never said the government knows better than you about anything, and your "comfort" is not my concern.  I don't care what makes you "comfortable".  Not even a little.

And I never said to ban guns that "could" kill people.  I was talking specifically about guns "designed" to kill people, which I'm pretty sure aren't the same rifles you would choose for hunting bears.

This is the perfect example of how irrational the gun lobby is.  You swap out what I say for whatever strengthens your argument any time you like and spin it to to boost your own argument.  If you people argued honestly I guess you wouldn't have an argument, though.

In other words, how in the world is what you just stated going to come about in the real world?  It is fine to theorize about guns... but reality is much different.  I can easily take a semi-automatic weapon and turn it full auto in about 10 minutes with the right tools - how is this keeping automatic weapons out of terrorist hands.  I can also get a milling machine and produce my own actions... no need to register anything... or even pay attention to gun laws.

Once again, taint the argument with twisted reality.  NOBODY mention terrorists in this argument.  I didn't argue about keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists.  When the hell did terrorists come into this?  Oh yeah, when you wanted to inject something into the argument and project it onto me to boost your position.  If you don't have an honest argument you don't have an argument worth arguing.

And, yes, you could probably do all that.  Could he?


Once again you are changing MY argument to suit your needs.  MY argument had nothing to do with terrorists.  MY argument had nothing to do with illegally modified or manufactured guns.  MY argument was about LEGALITY, not off the wall POSSIBILITY.

And I will state, the second amendment was not put in place to protect my rights as a hunter - but instead as a check against government tyranny.  Govt has now grown to the point where any one gun will not matter in this regard - so do we discard the second amendment?  Or do we expand it like the gun lobby wants us to to restore its original intent - to keep the citizenry armed and the government in check?  If the govt uses automatic rifles, then the people must be allowed to in order to maintain parity.  If the government has bear cats - then private citizens also have the right to anti-personnel equipment.  My views don't go this far... but some I know do.  I would take the bearcats AWAY from the cops - not give then to civilians.

Yeah, we already covered the government tyranny thing.  "Come on men!  Their tens of thousands of cruise missiles which can pinpoint our exact location from thousands of miles away using satellite surveillance are no match for our assault rifles which require line of sight, do almost no damage by comparison and have vastly inferior range!"  Arming yourself against the government is a pipe dream.  If you don't have nukes you can't defend against the government.  But the REALITY is that the government would never use that against you.  EVEN IF they wanted to they would have to get cooperation from each individual in the chain of the armed forces.  I guarantee you one or two just might have a problem firing on their own.  Do you know when they wouldn't have a problem doing that?  When those people were firing at them.

If the purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect us from the government then I have bad news for you, the Second Amendment has failed, is outdated, no longer serves its intended purpose and, thus, is invalid.  YOU CAN NOT get enough/powerful enough weapons to protect you from cruise missiles.

I am a farmer and can get a nearly unlimited supply of diesel fuel and the right fertilizers - these are far, far more dangerous than an automatic rifle.  And yet easier to get than a gun and certainly far easier to steal - it lies in huge, unguarded piles all over the midwest - why no bitching about this? A well placed bomb will make an automatic rifle seem quaint.  Just look at the difference between OK City and San Bernardino.

Um, maybe because there weren't more mass BOMBINGS this year than days in the year?  Maybe because MAKING a bomb is a lot different/more difficult than BUYING a gun, even if you have previous domestic abuse and mental illnesses on your record?  Maybe because, once again, that's not the discussion we're having?

As a people, we oftentimes ignore the obvious and keep our eyes focused on bright shiny objects... much to our detriment.  Though politicians love this fact as it makes their job easier...

I agree.  That's how they so often use a shiny gun to distract people from the real issues, like climate change and assaults on women's rights.

[widdershins]

"Yes, but if the public at large is (heavily) armed, then mass shootings could be prevented."
Wouldn't that be nice. Did it ever happen by the way?

Gerard

It's sad, but I am just waiting for the day when this idea is tested.  One person sees something, pulls their gun and opens fire, then other people see a man shooting at another man who's ducking, trying not to get shot and pull their guns to defend him and, before you know it, you have a bunch of people all shooting at each other because nobody knows who is firing at who and why and nobody is trained to defuse the situation, only to "protect themselves and others" by shooting at "bad guys", which, obviously, is the asshole firing the gun...until it's you.

[widdershins]

The Donald's recent comments (potentially) gave his Republican opponents a weapon that might enable them to unite against him. Let's see if they're up to that. I have my hopes / doubts.....

Gerard

You know what, you just pointed out that we are getting WAY off topic.  If anyone wants to keep talking about gun control, take it to another thread.  I'd be happy to do a one on one or something, but this thread isn't about gun control, so I'm done with it in here.

[Gerard]

You don't see the folly in this statement?

I am a hunter...  I once prepared for a hunting trip for Grizzly.  I went through about 10 different rifles before I settled on one that would do the job.

That gun will EASILY kill a human at 500 yards.  It looks the same as all the other rifles out there.  This things was considered barely enough for a grizzly.  You trying to tell me that a govt regulator knows better than me what I am comfortable with in a hunting scenario like that?  I guarantee there is no difference between a gun "designed" to kill a human and a grizzly... the differences exist in how you use the weapon only - and you can't legislate intent. 

In other words, how in the world is what you just stated going to come about in the real world?  It is fine to theorize about guns... but reality is much different.  I can easily take a semi-automatic weapon and turn it full auto in about 10 minutes with the right tools - how is this keeping automatic weapons out of terrorist hands.  I can also get a milling machine and produce my own actions... no need to register anything... or even pay attention to gun laws.

And I will state, the second amendment was not put in place to protect my rights as a hunter - but instead as a check against government tyranny.  Govt has now grown to the point where any one gun will not matter in this regard - so do we discard the second amendment?  Or do we expand it like the gun lobby wants us to to restore its original intent - to keep the citizenry armed and the government in check?  If the govt uses automatic rifles, then the people must be allowed to in order to maintain parity.  If the government has bear cats - then private citizens also have the right to anti-personnel equipment.  My views don't go this far... but some I know do.  I would take the bearcats AWAY from the cops - not give then to civilians.

I am a farmer and can get a nearly unlimited supply of diesel fuel and the right fertilizers - these are far, far more dangerous than an automatic rifle.  And yet easier to get than a gun and certainly far easier to steal - it lies in huge, unguarded piles all over the midwest - why no bitching about this? A well placed bomb will make an automatic rifle seem quaint.  Just look at the difference between OK City and San Bernardino.

As a people, we oftentimes ignore the obvious and keep our eyes focused on bright shiny objects... much to our detriment.  Though politicians love this fact as it makes their job easier...

This issue is not about people hunting animals. It’s about people hunting people. It's also not about individual situations. It's about rather worrying statistics of deaths.

The idea that the people being armed can protect themselves and their fellow citizens from their government turning into a tyranny is nothing more than an 18th century naive delusion. It was naive in the 18th century and is even more so now. It’s also a rather self aggrandizing and frankly dangerous idea that the fuckers with the guns fighting the government will be on the right side of that equation when it happens. Some may not trust the government or politicians. Will you trust the fuckers with the guns? If it really comes to that? Even if such a scenario were possible? Crazy persons in log cabins shooting at law enforcement officers somehow enter my mind now....
People carrying guns in shopping malls, churches and movie theatre’s will not prevent mass shootings from happening. They will mostly just shit their pants and run like all the others… Any meaningful statistics about such heroism?

Also, angsty teens or others with mental issues generally don't make fertilizer bombs. It's too much trouble. People have made them, but that's not something for impulsive idiots of the sort that shouldn't be trusted with blunt objects or guns. That's for determined terrorists. And that's a problem mostly (not always) but mostly unrelated to gun deaths generally.

Gerard

[Jack89]

You know what, you just pointed out that we are getting WAY off topic.  If anyone wants to keep talking about gun control, take it to another thread.  I'd be happy to do a one on one or something, but this thread isn't about gun control, so I'm done with it in here.

No kidding, I thought I selected the wrong thread there for a minute.

Ok then, back to Trump.  I'm not afraid of Donald, I'm actually kind of warming up to him.  I like his pro-American attitude ("Make America Great Again") and agree with some of his policy stances.  He's unapologetic and thinks America comes first.  If you're going to be the US President, that kinda makes sense. 

I'm not surprised he's doing so well.