I had it pointed out to me

[sr71plt]

If one emphasizes the militia clause, the Second Amendment can be construed as only permitting weapons useful as militia weapons -- like a fully functional AK47 or M16 variant.



You're apparently concerned primarily with preventing the 20th or 30th fatality. I'm more concerned with finding a way to prevent the FIRST fatality. Knee-jerk calls for banning "assault weapons" don't address either viewpoint.

If one emphasized the militia clause, we wouldn't be talking about anyone but the National Guard members owning guns at all. (And you keep talking of the Supreme Court as one voice. Four members of the Supreme Court--one less than a majority--didn't rule with the majority.)

And stop telling me what I think. I'm interested in preventing as many senseless killings by gun as possible. The first fatality happened a whole bunch of time ago. It's time to wake up.

And, yes, banning assault weapons addresses the issue. Don't be stupid. There's no "one fix does it all."

You're just being mealymouthed.

 

[sr71plt]

To Trysail: I spent over an hour posting on writing and editing issues on Literotica stories to the forum today. When was the last time you posted ANYTHING on writing or editing at Literotica--in your own words--to the Literotica forum? When was the last time you submitted a story to Literotica? (Last time I did so was this morning.)

I can answer the "last time" question. Trysail has only one story posted to Literotica, in February 2006--nearly seven years ago. He obviously doesn't devote a whole lot of effort to personal creativity or contribution on Literotica.

 

[Harry Leg]

To Trysail: I spent over an hour posting on writing and editing issues on Literotica stories to the forum today. When was the last time you posted ANYTHING on writing or editing at Literotica--in your own words--to the Literotica forum? When was the last time you submitted a story to Literotica? (Last time I did so was this morning.)

Is that your standard for value? Is the amount that you post to lit what defines your worth?
Weird Harold has done more to contribute to this website and help new people than almost anyone and you respond to him with insults and disdain. You have no respect.
It doesnt matter what you contribute, Pilot. You're a sad little man that spews bile and vitriol at anyone and everyone. You're unpleasant and arrogant and a bully.
And the very first person I have ever put on ignore.

I hope this doesnt hurt your feelings.

 

[sr71plt]

Is that your standard for value? Is the amount that you post to lit what defines your worth?
Weird Harold has done more to contribute to this website and help new people than almost anyone and you respond to him with insults and disdain. You have no respect.
It doesnt matter what you contribute, Pilot. You're a sad little man that spews bile and vitriol at anyone and everyone. You're unpleasant and arrogant and a bully.
And the very first person I have ever put on ignore.

I hope this doesnt hurt your feelings.

It certainly helps define Trysail's worth here.

And Harold calls me stupid when he thinks I am and I call him that when I think he's being that. I also quite often post agreement with him. In this instance, I thought it was stupid to say that banning assault guns wouldn't help alleviate the problem being discussed--and I said so.

We don't all just post to Literotica to be cute. If my only contribution was to post what I thought were clever little remarks and "hey, ain't I clever? poems," I guess I'd take your position to.

I care that you put me on ignore, because . . . ? You've never posted anything I thought inspirational for my writing. I also have never dropped out of the blue to dump on you as you now have done to me twice. So, I don't realy agree on which one of us is unpleasant and arrogant.

 

[PennLady]

This is a multi-pronged problem and it will require multi-pronged solutions at all levels.

I have been long pondering the Constitution -- is it static or not? Should it change or not? Some people think it must; it has twenty-odd amendments, after all, and I don't think most people are too anxious to have any of them repealed (Prohibition being the obvious exception). And the Second Amendment and its phrasing pose a conundrum, certainly. I think it should be considered in its historical context, and I don't think it guarantees the individual right to have a gun.

Yes, I know, the Supreme Court disagrees with me, but that decision (as others have noted) was hardly a landslide, and those decisions can be changed. Perhaps this one will.

Mental health care must be seen as just as legitimate as physical health care. I've wondered if part of the problem is that physical ailments and illnesses and injuries are more tangible and visible. You can see a cut; a rash; a broken bone. You cannot see mental problems in that same way, at least not yet. And there is still a stigma -- people are ashamed to admit they have them, or scared to, and some people think you just need to "get yourself together." It's not that simple.

I've looked at a lot of stats over the last few days and one thing stands out, a simple equation. Stricter gun laws = fewer guns = fewer shootings. Australia (again, I think others have noted this) has not a mass shooting since tightening their gun control laws in 1996 (I think). And I don't think the Australians fear the government coming in their door at night.

It's cultural too. Guns are, for various reasons, embedded in our national history and identity. Who is the American icon? The Cowboy. What does he carry? A gun. How does he settle things? A shoot out at high noon. I have a Canadian friend, and things like this are just beyond him, he says. No Canadian (except a few) would feel or understand the American need to own a gun.

I get it -- when America was developing, guns were needed for food and protection (as much from animals as people, I'd imagine). But the country is different now. Crime is down nearly every where, we are enjoying a better standard of living than at any other time in history, yet people still feel their are under siege. But we are not.

You do not need a semi-automatic rifle to hunt deer, nor to protect your home. Weapons like that are made for one purpose: to fire many projectiles as quickly as possible, thereby doing as much damage as possible as quickly as possible. These are not for target shooting.

Guns are tools, I get that. But they are tools made especially for inflicting injury and death.

If other countries can restrict access -- and lower deaths -- without a general uproar, why can't we?

 

[JackLuis]

In the US, mass child killings are tragedies. In Pakistan, mere bug splats

Here is another point.

f the victims of Mr Obama's drone strikes are mentioned by the state at all, they are discussed in terms which suggest that they are less than human. The people who operate the drones, Rolling Stone magazine reports, describe their casualties as "bug splats", "since viewing the body through a grainy-green video image gives the sense of an insect being crushed". Or they are reduced to vegetation: justifying the drone war, Obama's counterterrorism adviser Bruce Riedel explained that "you've got to mow the lawn all the time. The minute you stop mowing, the grass is going to grow back".

Bug Splats or not, their mothers cry just as we do.

 

[sr71plt]

Here is another point.



Bug Splats or not, their mothers cry just as we do.

Yep, that's a related point too. Just not directly related to ending video-game-driven domestic terrorism in the United States. But killing-by-drone (not to mention that the United States is the world's largest arms supplier--by far) is all part of what Americans aren't getting their brains in gear on.

(This drone business also gives the horselaugh to those insisting on painting Obama as some sort of spineless peacenik.)

On another thread, incidentally, someone opined that these mass killings in the United States should be put under Homeland Security. That's where, in fact, they are put inside the government. And within the White House, they are followed and reported by the president's Homeland Security adviser. They are treated as domestic terrorism.

 

[JackLuis]

Yep, that's a related point too. - They are treated as domestic terrorism.

Who?

It's all about leadership. Obama has a chance to effect the situation, but he is not going to.

 

[sr71plt]

Who?

It's all about leadership. Obama has a chance to effect the situation, but he is not going to.

Who what? The "they" referred to the mass killings in schools, malls, theaters, churches, etc. by crazy punks with assault guns in the United States.

Neither you nor I can say Obama isn't going to do anything about it. If you expected him to get it done in the last two days, you arent too bright. What we can be more sure of is that the NRA and several folks posting to this thread aren't going to do anything about changing the situation if they can help it.

You'd be looking for him to "affect" the situation, by the way. The only way he could "effect" the situation would be to go out to Fair Oaks Mall with an AK-47 and start firing away. "Effecting" the situation would be continuing the situation.

 

[JackLuis]

Who what? The "they" referred to the mass killings in schools, malls, theaters, churches, etc. by crazy punks with assault guns in the United States.

Neither you nor I can say Obama isn't going to do anything about it. If you expected him to get it done in the last two days, you arent too bright. What we can be more sure of is that the NRA and several folks posting to this thread aren't going to do anything about changing the situation if they can help it.

Now that's why you get put on iggy. Here we were discussing things in a civil manner and you say, "If you expected him to get it done in the last two days, you arent too bright." Some people take offense when you do that.

Sorry, affect then.

The reason that I say he will probably not accomplish much is that he needs a Demo Congress and he doesn't want to end up like Clinton, with a more hostile congress in 2014. He'll push it until he sees the mood change, then he'll "move to more pressing issues."

 

[sr71plt]

Now that's why you get put on iggy. Here we were discussing things in a civil manner and you say, "If you expected him to get it done in the last two days, you arent too bright." Some people take offense when you do that.

And claiming he won't do anything even though he has a chance to is why you would get called not to bright on this point. Your subsequent explanation might be a reason why much won't get done; it doesn't support your flat claim that he won't take the chance to try to do something. It more correctly explains why he might not have a chance to get something done. Your claim was that he had a chance; your explanation reverses that. So, I stick with my belief that you haven't been too bright on this point.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

There are just too many people not using their brains on this issue.

You also seem to have missed the point that I don't give a rat's ass who puts me on ignore--or claims to.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

Now that's why you get put on iggy. Here we were discussing things in a civil manner and you say, "If you expected him to get it done in the last two days, you arent too bright." Some people take offense when you do that.

Sorry, affect then.

The reason that I say he will probably not accomplish much is that he needs a Demo Congress and he doesn't want to end up like Clinton, with a more hostile congress in 2014. He'll push it until he sees the mood change, then he'll "move to more pressing issues."

Not this time. Those of us who aspire to live in a civilized society aren't going to allow this issue to fly below the radar. We're tired of living in a world where every asshole has to prove he has the biggest dick by owning weapons made for war. No one needs an assault rifle or a handgun with armor piercing bullets, a 30 round clip, and a silencer. Who uses those weapons? Soldiers and homicidal maniacs. If you aren't a soldier, and you aren't planning to shoot up as many people as you can in a crowded public space, then you have no use for a weapon of war.

 

[Weird Harold]

And stop telling me what I think. .

Please extend me the same courtesy.

And, yes, banning assault weapons addresses the issue. Don't be stupid. There's no "one fix does it all."

Since the .223 Bushmaster was specifically configured to make it legal under the ban that expired in 2004, what makes you think reinstating the ban would have prevented Newtown? If "assault weapons" had any real meaning other than cosmetics and ergonomics, it might make sense to ban them. Since "assault weapons" seem to be synonymous with "Scary Looking" as far as Ms Feinstein and other legislators are concerned, I very little faith in their ability to draft any effective gun ban.

 

[sr71plt]

Please extend me the same courtesy.





Since the .223 Bushmaster was specifically configured to make it legal under the ban that expired in 2004, what makes you think reinstating the ban would have prevented Newtown? If "assault weapons" had any real meaning other than cosmetics and ergonomics, it might make sense to ban them. Since "assault weapons" seem to be synonymous with "Scary Looking" as far as Ms Feinstein and other legislators are concerned, I very little faith in their ability to draft any effective gun ban.

Obviously the answer is to broaden the ban and put more teeth in it. Is this a trick question? I haven't posted anything at all about reinstating any previous ban. Nor do I see where I asserted anything to you on a previous ban.

Again, you seem to want to do my thinking for me--to support not doing anything about this situation. My point is that we need to do more than we've ever tried before. What we are doing obviously isn't working. We need to tighten the controls until these events are a rarity--at least the mass killings because you can fire off many rounds in a very short time. And, yes, we need to strengthen the mental health side--and maybe tighten the controls on violent video games too. I did say "need" by the way. For it to happen there are a bunch of folks who need to get a brain.

 

[Weird Harold]

Obviously the answer is to broaden the ban and put more teeth in it. Is this a trick question? I haven't posted anything at all about reinstating any previous ban. Nor do I see where I asserted anything to you on a previous ban.

You used the term "assault weapons." Currently the only definition of that term is in the expired assault weapons ban or Ms Feinstein's proposed renewal of that ban. Outside of that legal definition, the term is meaningless.

I've recently seen the .223 Bushmaster described as "the most popular long gun in the US." How do you plan to "broaden the ban" without running into the prohibition against ex post facto laws and/or the second amendment?

Banning extended magazines is both possible and has several precedents in hunting regulations that limit magazine capacity in hunting rifles and shotguns (five rounds and three rounds respectively)

Banning or restricting "semi-automatic" actions runs into the problem of the large base of hunting rifles, varmint guns, and shotguns for hunting and target shooting that are auto-loaders. Many of those "justifiable" guns use the same functional design as the "assault weapons" you want to ban.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't give a shit about your technical definitions. Ban anything that doesn't require a separate, delayed trigger action for each round. It's the effect that has to be dealt with. Just stop throwing flak up in the air.

The goal would be to give the victims at least a fighting chance. And, yes, I'd do this with hunting guns too. I'd give the wildlife a fighting chance too.

 

[driphoney]

Guns are tools, I get that. But they are tools made especially for inflicting injury and death.

If other countries can restrict access -- and lower deaths -- without a general uproar, why can't we?

Pardon me for amending your thoughtful post.

Depending on where you look, in the US, there are between 270,000,000 and 310,000,000 non-military firearms (that last number might include police firearms, I didn’t see the specifics.) That is about 88 firearms per every 100 Americans (or greater if you use the second number.) That’s a lot of anything to restrict or reduce.

No easy answers, are there?

 

[sr71plt]

That’s a lot of anything to restrict or reduce.

Right. But if you don't start, you don't get anywhere.

 

[Weird Harold]

I don't give a shit about your technical definitions. Ban anything that doesn't require a separate, delayed trigger action for each round. It's the effect that has to be dealt with. Just stop throwing flak up in the air.

If you want that extreme a ban, (essentially everything more complicated than a single action revolver, bolt action rifle, or double barreled shotgun) you'd better be worried about more than the minor "flak" I "throw up in the air." At a rough guess, you're proposing to make two thirds of current legal gun-owners into criminals by outlawing their guns.

It might be nice to get rid of two-thirds of the guns in the US, but I don't think it is anything close to achievable -- at least not in my children's lifetime.

 

[driphoney]

(This drone business also gives the horselaugh to those insisting on painting Obama as some sort of spineless peacenik.)

And occasionally used by non-Americans (as was done recently in my history class) to point out that not only are Republicans fat-footed civilian killers, but Democrats under Obama, too.

(But, shhh!, this is off topic. Just caught my attention.)

 

[driphoney]

Right. But if you don't start, you don't get anywhere.

I do not disagree.

 

[PennLady]

If you want that extreme a ban, (essentially everything more complicated than a single action revolver, bolt action rifle, or double barreled shotgun) you'd better be worried about more than the minor "flak" I "throw up in the air." At a rough guess, you're proposing to make two thirds of current legal gun-owners into criminals by outlawing their guns.

It might be nice to get rid of two-thirds of the guns in the US, but I don't think it is anything close to achievable -- at least not in my children's lifetime.

But you don't just "outlaw" the guns. You pass a law and you provide lead time -- six months, a year -- as an amnesty period for people to turn their guns in. Give them money for them, whatever. As Australia did. They would only be criminals if they kept their guns after the enforcement date, which would mean they broke the law.

 

[sr71plt]

If you want that extreme a ban, (essentially everything more complicated than a single action revolver, bolt action rifle, or double barreled shotgun) you'd better be worried about more than the minor "flak" I "throw up in the air." At a rough guess, you're proposing to make two thirds of current legal gun-owners into criminals by outlawing their guns.

It might be nice to get rid of two-thirds of the guns in the US, but I don't think it is anything close to achievable -- at least not in my children's lifetime.

You're not reading my postings.

And again, no, nothing will change, if you don't start doing something.

 

[mikey2much]

Its been a long time

But if I remember correctly the ones that they are selling as 'assault rifles' don't have the selector switch to place them on full automatic. So what you get is an automatic rifle in the way that your dad's 22 was an automatic. Each round fired requires a separate pull of the trigger.

There is a small piece, called the 'indent pin' that stops the gun from firing as it reloads itself. At one time you could buy a kit to overhaul your street version and make it into a military version. Or at least I have been told this by people that I thought would know something like that.

As far as I have heard this kid as well as all the other shootings have been by semi-automatic fire.

Someone posted that these AR15's (same gun but the military version was called the M16) were not a good gun on full automatic. That is not true. Full automatic is not built for long range targets. But I could put all twenty rounds through the bottom of a coffee can on full auto. on the forty meter range when I was serving in the army. That was a long time ago, I didn't wear glasses and had hair, well sorta, back then.

 

[TimothyM]

I don't give a shit about your technical definitions. Ban anything that doesn't require a separate, delayed trigger action for each round. It's the effect that has to be dealt with.

Oh, finally someone who cuts through all this shit about whether this or that gun is technically defined as a semi-automatic or not. I'm so fed up with reading this excuse all over.

Classical, proper rifles and shotguns used for hunting (which are the only ones I have personal experience with) have one or two bullets/shots. Handguns used by real men or even women for self defense have a limited number of bullets that can be fired right after each other (traditionally 6 I guess).

Anything else and especially weapons that can kill 20 children with multiple shots within few minutes, are just senseless. Only meant for one thing: killing humans as fast as possible without much skill or thought. Which is fine in war but noone has been able to say what use such weapons are in normal, civilian life.

People who need to own them (or cannot live with the idea that they should not be available) probably have such massive minority complexes and lack of self worth that you almost have to feel sorry for them. Yeah, I know that's cheap, but I simply cannot think of it as anything but a kind of security blanket. Jeez, the mind boogles at the thought of a whole country with millions of sad people who cannot feel safe or happy without the means to kill fellow human beings.

And I've yet to hear of any case where a civilian with a gun prevented or stopped a maniac on a killing spree. I'm sure examples exist, but it's so strange that they are not put forward whenever we hear the argument 'if only more people could carry guns, this could have been prevented'. You don't expect me to believe that there are never people present with an illegal gun (e.g. all those criminals that are always mentioned) or maybe even with a licenced weapon. I'm certain the police would be forgiving if such a person shot 'the psycho killer with the rifle'. I mean they sure didn't mind the private guard who shot the black teenager in a hood because he looked threathening....