Kalamazoo, Michigan: Six shot dead in 'random' attacks

[KP]

Why do you need a hunting rifle if you do not hunt? And a hand gun permit, aka a pistol permit, is a permit to carry a pistol. They may not have them in your state. They do in others.

Handgunlaw.us

I like your suggestion, but I can see some problems with it too.. However, this is a good example of how even common sense suggestions like yours are attacked by people who believe the 2nd Amendment enshrines a constitutional right to overthrow the government by force. (It doesn't)

Thanks for posting like a rational sane adult, even though we have different opinions.

Today the militia is called the National Guard. That's my opinion. I believe that firearms are required for national defense purposes, which is why in the 2A, the word "militia" occurs before the words "right" and "arms"...

As for history, the US 2nd Amendment was lifted wholesale from the English Bill of Rights.

You almost make me ashamed of being born in Texas. Most Texans have more common sense than you have exhibited.

You almost make me ashamed of being born in Texas. Most Texans have more common sense than you have exhibited.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

For better or for worse, the English no longer have the right to bear arms.

The English do stab each other a lot more than Americans these days, but overall, their murder rates are still significantly lower.

Ironically, this is exactly how the English right to bear arms came into existence.

England was poor and couldn't afford a standing army. So a law was decreed that all males of military age MUST own a military grade weapon, so that if they were mustered/drafted for military service, they would bring their own weapons, saving the government the very large cost of equipping a military force, aka a "MILITIA..."

With the passage of time, what was originally a form of tax was declared a "right", and codified in the English Bill of Rights.

Those sneaky English... "Give me an apple and I'll let you paint my fence...", etc. (Paraphrased from Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn)

Everyone and anything you disagree with simply gets called names.

I understand that you're angry, but I think you're wrong on this one. Rob is too.

Just because seat belts don't solve the problem of traffic accidents, they save lives, and as such, they're a good idea.

If you believe the 2nd amendment enshrines a constitutional right to overthrow the government by force, then that's the core of our disagreement. I'm okay with that.

We both get to vote.

It does not matter how much reason you are presented with. You will continue to spout the Michael Bloomberg rhetoric until you are blue in the face.

I do not need a hunting license to shoot holes in paper. I do not need a carry permit if I do not carry outside the confines of my home. Even though I live in one of the most draconian states when it comes to "gun law" nonsense, at least not yet.

The militia is not the National Guard in any way possible. I know because I have enough ancestors who were militia. But do not let facts get in the way of your stirring. By the way, you almost make me ashamed of being born in Texas. Most Texans have more common sense than you have exhibited.

 

[Deus Vult]

Have we blamed white privelege yet?

 

[45WinMag]

I think a lot of the increasingly strident tone from the anti-gun side is due to the realization that they no longer have the upper hand, and momentum is with the pro-gun movement. Absent a few state and local laws passed in extremely liberal areas, they are not moving forward with anything, despite several incidents that they would have been able to use to their advantage in the past. Incrementalism has ground to a halt. It's bewildering to them that they cannot get any more restrictions at the Federal level, despite dancing in the blood of mass shooting victims.

Things have swung the other way, and this really scares them. They see the potential for undoing a lot of what they railroaded through over the past 80 years. Notice all the talk of compromise. That's a key indicator of their fear. There was no talk of compromise when they were shoving their agenda down out throats. Now that things are moving in our direction, suddenly there has to be compromise. Well, were not having it. How much has momentum shifted? In the past, talk in pro-gun circles was mostly about merely holding the line. Now there is talk of things that were not considered possible even a few years ago. National carry reciprocity is a real possibility in the near future. The next push after that will be Constitutional carry. I even hear talk of going after the NFA! In the past the NFA was considered so entrenched we would never be rid of it. While I seriously doubt it will be repealed even in the next few years, the simple fact that it is even being discussed signals a sea change. I'm looking forward to giving the anti-gun side a taste of their own techniques.

 

[45WinMag]

Have we blamed white privelege yet?

There was mention of "angry white males", does that count?

 

[Bigfoot410]

The percent that's reported....

Ohio seems WAY low. There is not one person I know here in Ohio that doesn't own several firearms.

I think you hit the nail on the head here.

 

[Kamen_Kaiju]

Have we blamed white privelege yet?

 

[LtDave32]

I think a lot of the increasingly strident tone from the anti-gun side is due to the realization that they no longer have the upper hand, and momentum is with the pro-gun movement. Absent a few state and local laws passed in extremely liberal areas, they are not moving forward with anything, despite several incidents that they would have been able to use to their advantage in the past. Incrementalism has ground to a halt. It's bewildering to them that they cannot get any more restrictions at the Federal level, despite dancing in the blood of mass shooting victims.

Things have swung the other way, and this really scares them. They see the potential for undoing a lot of what they railroaded through over the past 80 years. Notice all the talk of compromise. That's a key indicator of their fear. There was no talk of compromise when they were shoving their agenda down out throats. Now that things are moving in our direction, suddenly there has to be compromise. Well, were not having it. How much has momentum shifted? In the past, talk in pro-gun circles was mostly about merely holding the line. Now there is talk of things that were not considered possible even a few years ago. National carry reciprocity is a real possibility in the near future. The next push after that will be Constitutional carry. I even hear talk of going after the NFA! In the past the NFA was considered so entrenched we would never be rid of it. While I seriously doubt it will be repealed even in the next few years, the simple fact that it is even being discussed signals a sea change. I'm looking forward to giving the anti-gun side a taste of their own techniques.

Simply put, most people are logical creatures, and know that you cannot deal with a bad guy who has a gun unless you are a good guy who has a gun.

If the bad guy/crazy guy/poor, misunderstood Little Lord Poopstain (take your pick) has a gun, he has a tactical advantage over anyone who doesn't, and most people understand the hoping and praying he goes away before their own are harmed, isn't something they can count on.

 

[Gary]

American culture has made a major change in the past decade. Firearms have gone mainstream. Legal gun sales have broken all previous records. Mostly, by female, first time gun owners.

 

[Scooter2112]

Ohio seems WAY low. There is not one person I know here in Ohio that doesn't own several firearms.

I think you hit the nail on the head here.

I know. I laughed when I saw that too. WAY under-reported, for whatever reason. No way in hell that is even close to reality.

 

[KP]

I know. I laughed when I saw that too. WAY under-reported, for whatever reason. No way in hell that is even close to reality.

It all depends on what their agenda is. You can make any poll say anything you wish if you know the right questions to ask or the right people to ask. I put no stock in such "statistics".

 

[JayFreddy]

Simply put, most people are logical creatures, and know that you cannot deal with a bad guy who has a gun unless you are a good guy who has a gun.

If the bad guy/crazy guy/poor, misunderstood Little Lord Poopstain (take your pick) has a gun, he has a tactical advantage over anyone who doesn't, and most people understand the hoping and praying he goes away before their own are harmed, isn't something they can count on.

I'm not trying to "take anyone's guns". Although you guys seem to think so.

Someone else made a reference to unvetted refugees upthread, which has since been Ninja-edited. That's fine, it was off topic anyway.

It seems to me like there are mass shootings everyday, and some people are more concerned with their gun collections than defending themselves, the constitution, and the innocent.

I'm not here to be a straw man for hypothetical gun grabber scenarios.

Gary, your contention that since 1950 only two shootings in the US have occurred outside a gun-free zone is FALSE:

Open-carry encounters in Kalamazoo raise questions about laws in Michigan, other states | MLive.com

 

[LtDave32]

Statistics are for the most part, meaningless. It all depends. It all depends on perspective. Oftentimes they are gleaned from a loaded question.

Look at Chicago. Plenty of "stats" there. And every anti-gun advocate will give you a thousand different stats, "straw-man" stats, etc along with a 55-gallon drum full of spin when you bring that city up.

But the bottom line is this; even with a "no handguns allowed" policy, it doesn't even slow it down. I've been through some rough stuff, but I would think twice about walking the South side up there. Especially after dark.

Their policy doesn't work. It is a law and nothing more. So the lawless don't give a damn. Killings every night.

-Which is why I choose to keep my firearms. I don't live in anything like Chicago, but I do live in the meth kingdom of the West; San Bernardino County.

If some tweaker wants to try and best me, he'll know damn well he's been in a scrap. I will bring warfare upon him that he couldn't possibly imagine.

 

[MichaelAndrew3435]

So, since a middle aged white male commited a mass shooting, can we put a temporary ban on all middle aged white males and generalize them like we do with every other ethnic group who commits the same crime?

 

[Kamen_Kaiju]

" I would think twice about walking the South side up there. Especially after dark. "

..that would be wise.

West Side too, though it's not as bad.

Good times.

Glad I'm out.

Watch Shameless (US) if you want to see real Chicago life. not the downtown/lake side rich people life.

yeah it's a tv show,..but it's pretty accurate in a lot of ways.

 

[LtDave32]

I'm not trying to "take anyone's guns". Although you guys seem to think so.

Someone else made a reference to unvetted refugees upthread, which has since been Ninja-edited. That's fine, it was off topic anyway.

It seems to me like there are mass shootings everyday, and some people are more concerned with their gun collections than defending themselves, the constitution, and the innocent.

I'm not here to be a straw man for hypothetical gun grabber scenarios.

Gary, your contention that since 1950 only two shootings in the US have occurred outside a gun-free zone is FALSE:

Open-carry encounters in Kalamazoo raise questions about laws in Michigan, other states | MLive.com

Well then Jay, since you're going to quote me and deliver the above post, I feel compelled to ask this:

What is it that you want from us?


If you want an answer to gun violence, mass shootings, etc is not our responsibility to provide you with that answer. As it stands (although weakened somewhat in the last few decades), the 2A serves me in a manner of which I can protect myself from bad guys/crazy guys/troubled guys. I see no reason to tweak it, change it, or otherwise modify based on the opinion of others who in my humble opinion, do not know what it's like to fight for your life.

Those of you who wish for a solution other than what's already provided; get busy and think on it. I'll be happy to evaluate and opine on anything reasonable that you come up with. Until then, I'll continue working with what I have.

No disrespect intended whatsoever. It's simply my position on things.

 

[Deus Vult]

 

[JayFreddy]

Statistics are for the most part, meaningless. It all depends. It all depends on perspective. Oftentimes they are gleaned from a loaded question.

Look at Chicago. Plenty of "stats" there. And every anti-gun advocate will give you a thousand different stats, "straw-man" stats, etc along with a 55-gallon drum full of spin when you bring that city up.

But the bottom line is this; even with a "no handguns allowed" policy, it doesn't even slow it down. I've been through some rough stuff, but I would think twice about walking the South side up there. Especially after dark.

Their policy doesn't work. It is a law and nothing more. So the lawless don't give a damn. Killings every night.

-Which is why I choose to keep my firearms. I don't live in anything like Chicago, but I do live in the meth kingdom of the West; San Bernardino County.

If some tweaker wants to try and best me, he'll know damn well he's been in a scrap. I will bring warfare upon him that he couldn't possibly imagine.

I completely agree with everything in the above post.

Well then Jay, since you're going to quote me and deliver the above post, I feel compelled to ask this:

What is it that you want from us?

A discussion. Of potential options. Not necessarily perfect options... Just options that you think might-could work for you.

I'm not trying to take your guns. You were the one who proposed that as a hypothetical. Personally, I don't think that option would work for ME.

Those of you who wish for a solution other than what's already provided; get busy and think on it. I'll be happy to evaluate and opine on anything reasonable that you come up with. Until then, I'll continue working with what I have.

No disrespect intended whatsoever. It's simply my position on things.

Just as I agree with your previous post, I agree with this one too. That's all I ever expected. I'm fine if anyone disagrees with me, that's why it's called a discussion.

I don't care for the knee jerk name-calling and scapegoating, but as I said, it's an election year.

Besides, this is MLP... I didn't really expect anything less.

 

[Deus Vult]

Now my cat gif doesn't make much sense

 

[LtDave32]

I completely agree with everything in the above post.

A discussion. Of potential options. Not necessarily perfect options... Just options that you think might-could work for you.

I'm not trying to take your guns. You were the one who proposed that as a hypothetical. Personally, I don't think that option would work for ME.

I've given you discussion. I've said all I'm going to say on the matter when I said that I wouldn't adjust nor modify the 2A in favor of more restrictions.

Again, it is not my responsibility to provide options. I'm not the one who wants it messed with.

And I'm not worried about you taking my guns. I never once said so. In fact, the thought never crossed my mind.

 

[Deus Vult]

Anyone see that Lexington , Massachusetts is trying to implement confiscation? That's really rich. Maybe they'll try to implement it on April 19.