Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's as simple as voting Dems and GOP out. I think there are Dems who also support NRA and pro gun. This is not about the right for gun ownership rather the ability and knowledge to use a gun safely. You'll never be able to magically wipe out (at least not now!) gun ownership - too many out there. And having spent years fighting the gun lobby, I think it hasn't been energy well spent. To rid guns from the street is a pipe dream.

BUT we can look at who gets the guns, track them and put a process by which they have to legally follow in order to continue to own them. I may not be able to take away the right for someone who suggests they have a right to own in this country, but I can make them follow specific processes to try to promote public safety and abilities to use them the wrong way. There's more than 1 way to skin a cat so to speak

I’m not sure if you’re responding to me (13:35) but I may not have been clear. We will make no progress, on any aspect of this, as long as the GOP has enough power to block legislation at the state and federal level. They will allow no laws about tracking, public safety, mental health, nothing.

I come from a hunting family. I don’t give a rat’s if people own hunting rifles (but if you invited my kids over, I want to know they’re in a safe). But people who insist on an arsenal of guns that require no aiming, that can tear humans apart and make pink slime of little children’s bodies, that essentially have endless ammo - this is not acceptable. This is not fun. This is unsafe. It is tearing America apart and I believe that’s what the GOP wants.

“Require no aiming.”

Don’t know much about firearms, do you?

DP. That was easily understood. The AR-15 is a popular gun because it is easy to use, fun, and almost point-and-shoot. Aiming in the general direction is good enough.

You haven’t got the slightest idea what you’re blithering about. “Point and shoot?” “General direction?” An AR15 is a rifle. It shoots an approximately 22 caliber bullet. A good example can shoot into an inch at 100 yards if properly handled by a competent marksman. The more average performance with an average shooter and average rifle would be 4-6 inches at 100 yards. These results require close, careful sight alignment, breath control, trigger control, recoil control, consistent head position on the stock, a stable shooting platform, etc. Point and shoot will result in random, if any, hits. General direction shooting the same. Myths and ignorance notwithstanding, there is a lot more space around targets than on them. Sportsmen spend years perfecting their skills and thousands of dollars on customized firearms and sights to shrink their shot groups and win competitions.

The people using it to kill other people are not shooting 100 yards. In a classroom, they are point and shoot.

Why don’t you go out to a rifle range and try that theory out? And if you are correct, which you aren’t, the AR15 is functionally indistinguishable from numerous other firearms, and even less distinguishable in terms of point blank fish in a barrel “accuracy.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it can fire dozens of bullets in an instant
If it’s so powerful, armed law enforcement is afraid to act
If it can take limbs and head off, remove faces, while penetrating structural walls…


It needs to go. You shouldn’t able to get one.
The end.

“Dozens of bullets in an instant?” Really?

“Penetrate structural walls?” A 5.56 (.22 caliber) bullet? Really?

Take faces, limbs and head off? Really?

You might want to do some research instead of parroting extremist distortions.

As for police and their manifest lack of courage, let’s just say that it isn’t the weapon the criminals are wielding rat is the problem. It’s the *ahem* “equipment” the police are lacking, and I’m not talking about firearms, armor or other manufactured items.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it can fire dozens of bullets in an instant
If it’s so powerful, armed law enforcement is afraid to act
If it can take limbs and head off, remove faces, while penetrating structural walls…


It needs to go. You shouldn’t able to get one.
The end.

“Dozens of bullets in an instant?” Really?

“Penetrate structural walls?” A 5.56 (.22 caliber) bullet? Really?

Take faces, limbs and head off? Really?

You might want to do some research instead of parroting extremist distortions.

As for police and their manifest lack of courage, let’s just say that it isn’t the weapon the criminals are wielding rat is the problem. It’s the *ahem* “equipment” the police are lacking, and I’m not talking about firearms, armor or other manufactured items.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's as simple as voting Dems and GOP out. I think there are Dems who also support NRA and pro gun. This is not about the right for gun ownership rather the ability and knowledge to use a gun safely. You'll never be able to magically wipe out (at least not now!) gun ownership - too many out there. And having spent years fighting the gun lobby, I think it hasn't been energy well spent. To rid guns from the street is a pipe dream.

BUT we can look at who gets the guns, track them and put a process by which they have to legally follow in order to continue to own them. I may not be able to take away the right for someone who suggests they have a right to own in this country, but I can make them follow specific processes to try to promote public safety and abilities to use them the wrong way. There's more than 1 way to skin a cat so to speak

I’m not sure if you’re responding to me (13:35) but I may not have been clear. We will make no progress, on any aspect of this, as long as the GOP has enough power to block legislation at the state and federal level. They will allow no laws about tracking, public safety, mental health, nothing.

I come from a hunting family. I don’t give a rat’s if people own hunting rifles (but if you invited my kids over, I want to know they’re in a safe). But people who insist on an arsenal of guns that require no aiming, that can tear humans apart and make pink slime of little children’s bodies, that essentially have endless ammo - this is not acceptable. This is not fun. This is unsafe. It is tearing America apart and I believe that’s what the GOP wants.

“Require no aiming.”

Don’t know much about firearms, do you?

DP. That was easily understood. The AR-15 is a popular gun because it is easy to use, fun, and almost point-and-shoot. Aiming in the general direction is good enough.

You haven’t got the slightest idea what you’re blithering about. “Point and shoot?” “General direction?” An AR15 is a rifle. It shoots an approximately 22 caliber bullet. A good example can shoot into an inch at 100 yards if properly handled by a competent marksman. The more average performance with an average shooter and average rifle would be 4-6 inches at 100 yards. These results require close, careful sight alignment, breath control, trigger control, recoil control, consistent head position on the stock, a stable shooting platform, etc. Point and shoot will result in random, if any, hits. General direction shooting the same. Myths and ignorance notwithstanding, there is a lot more space around targets than on them. Sportsmen spend years perfecting their skills and thousands of dollars on customized firearms and sights to shrink their shot groups and win competitions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's as simple as voting Dems and GOP out. I think there are Dems who also support NRA and pro gun. This is not about the right for gun ownership rather the ability and knowledge to use a gun safely. You'll never be able to magically wipe out (at least not now!) gun ownership - too many out there. And having spent years fighting the gun lobby, I think it hasn't been energy well spent. To rid guns from the street is a pipe dream.

BUT we can look at who gets the guns, track them and put a process by which they have to legally follow in order to continue to own them. I may not be able to take away the right for someone who suggests they have a right to own in this country, but I can make them follow specific processes to try to promote public safety and abilities to use them the wrong way. There's more than 1 way to skin a cat so to speak

I’m not sure if you’re responding to me (13:35) but I may not have been clear. We will make no progress, on any aspect of this, as long as the GOP has enough power to block legislation at the state and federal level. They will allow no laws about tracking, public safety, mental health, nothing.

I come from a hunting family. I don’t give a rat’s if people own hunting rifles (but if you invited my kids over, I want to know they’re in a safe). But people who insist on an arsenal of guns that require no aiming, that can tear humans apart and make pink slime of little children’s bodies, that essentially have endless ammo - this is not acceptable. This is not fun. This is unsafe. It is tearing America apart and I believe that’s what the GOP wants.

“Require no aiming.”

Don’t know much about firearms, do you?

DP. That was easily understood. The AR-15 is a popular gun because it is easy to use, fun, and almost point-and-shoot. Aiming in the general direction is good enough.

You haven’t got the slightest idea what you’re blithering about. “Point and shoot?” “General direction?” An AR15 is a rifle. It shoots an approximately 22 caliber bullet. A good example can shoot into an inch at 100 yards if properly handled by a competent marksman. The more average performance with an average shooter and average rifle would be 4-6 inches at 100 yards. These results require close, careful sight alignment, breath control, trigger control, recoil control, consistent head position on the stock, a stable shooting platform, etc. Point and shoot will result in random, if any, hits. General direction shooting the same. Myths and ignorance notwithstanding, there is a lot more space around targets than on them. Sportsmen spend years perfecting their skills and thousands of dollars on customized firearms and sights to shrink their shot groups and win competitions.

The people using it to kill other people are not shooting 100 yards. In a classroom, they are point and shoot.

Anonymous wrote:If it can fire dozens of bullets in an instant
If it’s so powerful, armed law enforcement is afraid to act
If it can take limbs and head off, remove faces, while penetrating structural walls…


It needs to go. You shouldn’t able to get one.
The end.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's as simple as voting Dems and GOP out. I think there are Dems who also support NRA and pro gun. This is not about the right for gun ownership rather the ability and knowledge to use a gun safely. You'll never be able to magically wipe out (at least not now!) gun ownership - too many out there. And having spent years fighting the gun lobby, I think it hasn't been energy well spent. To rid guns from the street is a pipe dream.

BUT we can look at who gets the guns, track them and put a process by which they have to legally follow in order to continue to own them. I may not be able to take away the right for someone who suggests they have a right to own in this country, but I can make them follow specific processes to try to promote public safety and abilities to use them the wrong way. There's more than 1 way to skin a cat so to speak

I’m not sure if you’re responding to me (13:35) but I may not have been clear. We will make no progress, on any aspect of this, as long as the GOP has enough power to block legislation at the state and federal level. They will allow no laws about tracking, public safety, mental health, nothing.

I come from a hunting family. I don’t give a rat’s if people own hunting rifles (but if you invited my kids over, I want to know they’re in a safe). But people who insist on an arsenal of guns that require no aiming, that can tear humans apart and make pink slime of little children’s bodies, that essentially have endless ammo - this is not acceptable. This is not fun. This is unsafe. It is tearing America apart and I believe that’s what the GOP wants.

“Require no aiming.”

Don’t know much about firearms, do you?

DP. That was easily understood. The AR-15 is a popular gun because it is easy to use, fun, and almost point-and-shoot. Aiming in the general direction is good enough.

You haven’t got the slightest idea what you’re blithering about. “Point and shoot?” “General direction?” An AR15 is a rifle. It shoots an approximately 22 caliber bullet. A good example can shoot into an inch at 100 yards if properly handled by a competent marksman. The more average performance with an average shooter and average rifle would be 4-6 inches at 100 yards. These results require close, careful sight alignment, breath control, trigger control, recoil control, consistent head position on the stock, a stable shooting platform, etc. Point and shoot will result in random, if any, hits. General direction shooting the same. Myths and ignorance notwithstanding, there is a lot more space around targets than on them. Sportsmen spend years perfecting their skills and thousands of dollars on customized firearms and sights to shrink their shot groups and win competitions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it can fire dozens of bullets in an instant
If it’s so powerful, armed law enforcement is afraid to act
If it can take limbs and head off, remove faces, while penetrating structural walls…


It needs to go. You shouldn’t able to get one.
The end.

100 million people have them, then what?

99,998,000 of them are totally fine. It is the thousand or so per year that engage in these types of events and other crimes, that are the problem.

It would be nice if those 99,998,000 would line up with those who want more regulation so their rights are not further eroded.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's as simple as voting Dems and GOP out. I think there are Dems who also support NRA and pro gun. This is not about the right for gun ownership rather the ability and knowledge to use a gun safely. You'll never be able to magically wipe out (at least not now!) gun ownership - too many out there. And having spent years fighting the gun lobby, I think it hasn't been energy well spent. To rid guns from the street is a pipe dream.

BUT we can look at who gets the guns, track them and put a process by which they have to legally follow in order to continue to own them. I may not be able to take away the right for someone who suggests they have a right to own in this country, but I can make them follow specific processes to try to promote public safety and abilities to use them the wrong way. There's more than 1 way to skin a cat so to speak

I’m not sure if you’re responding to me (13:35) but I may not have been clear. We will make no progress, on any aspect of this, as long as the GOP has enough power to block legislation at the state and federal level. They will allow no laws about tracking, public safety, mental health, nothing.

I come from a hunting family. I don’t give a rat’s if people own hunting rifles (but if you invited my kids over, I want to know they’re in a safe). But people who insist on an arsenal of guns that require no aiming, that can tear humans apart and make pink slime of little children’s bodies, that essentially have endless ammo - this is not acceptable. This is not fun. This is unsafe. It is tearing America apart and I believe that’s what the GOP wants.

“Require no aiming.”

Don’t know much about firearms, do you?

DP. That was easily understood. The AR-15 is a popular gun because it is easy to use, fun, and almost point-and-shoot. Aiming in the general direction is good enough.

You haven’t got the slightest idea what you’re blithering about. “Point and shoot?” “General direction?” An AR15 is a rifle. It shoots an approximately 22 caliber bullet. A good example can shoot into an inch at 100 yards if properly handled by a competent marksman. The more average performance with an average shooter and average rifle would be 4-6 inches at 100 yards. These results require close, careful sight alignment, breath control, trigger control, recoil control, consistent head position on the stock, a stable shooting platform, etc. Point and shoot will result in random, if any, hits. General direction shooting the same. Myths and ignorance notwithstanding, there is a lot more space around targets than on them. Sportsmen spend years perfecting their skills and thousands of dollars on customized firearms and sights to shrink their shot groups and win competitions.

Anonymous wrote:The only people I’ve met that are obsessed with the 2A are exactly the people who don’t seem stable enough to have that responsibility. They’re primarily a bunch of cosplay fantasy hero wannabes who wouldn’t last a day in the militia which is what the archaic right was for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's as simple as voting Dems and GOP out. I think there are Dems who also support NRA and pro gun. This is not about the right for gun ownership rather the ability and knowledge to use a gun safely. You'll never be able to magically wipe out (at least not now!) gun ownership - too many out there. And having spent years fighting the gun lobby, I think it hasn't been energy well spent. To rid guns from the street is a pipe dream.

BUT we can look at who gets the guns, track them and put a process by which they have to legally follow in order to continue to own them. I may not be able to take away the right for someone who suggests they have a right to own in this country, but I can make them follow specific processes to try to promote public safety and abilities to use them the wrong way. There's more than 1 way to skin a cat so to speak

I’m not sure if you’re responding to me (13:35) but I may not have been clear. We will make no progress, on any aspect of this, as long as the GOP has enough power to block legislation at the state and federal level. They will allow no laws about tracking, public safety, mental health, nothing.

I come from a hunting family. I don’t give a rat’s if people own hunting rifles (but if you invited my kids over, I want to know they’re in a safe). But people who insist on an arsenal of guns that require no aiming, that can tear humans apart and make pink slime of little children’s bodies, that essentially have endless ammo - this is not acceptable. This is not fun. This is unsafe. It is tearing America apart and I believe that’s what the GOP wants.

“Require no aiming.”

Don’t know much about firearms, do you?

DP. That was easily understood. The AR-15 is a popular gun because it is easy to use, fun, and almost point-and-shoot. Aiming in the general direction is good enough.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it can fire dozens of bullets in an instant
If it’s so powerful, armed law enforcement is afraid to act
If it can take limbs and head off, remove faces, while penetrating structural walls…


It needs to go. You shouldn’t able to get one.
The end.

100 million people have them, then what?

Anonymous wrote:If it can fire dozens of bullets in an instant
If it’s so powerful, armed law enforcement is afraid to act
If it can take limbs and head off, remove faces, while penetrating structural walls…


It needs to go. You shouldn’t able to get one.
The end.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to bring this conversation back to the reality of the situation. I live outside of Portland. It was youth night at the bowling alley where the shooter hit and there was a team of deaf children bowling.

This guy, despite what is being said in this thread, had a history of actually being a good guy. His family is saying this is some acute incident and so are his army reservist colleagues. Which isn't to defend him but to say it is actually very difficult to figure out when someone is truly snapping, and it can in fact happen rather suddenly.

So when all of you speak up against gun control you are of course all essentially saying that a man's right to have weapons is more important than deaf children being able to bow, elementary schoolers who are going to school, concert goers, people shopping at wal-mart, etc.

We have been saying this for decades. To the far right, the right to bear arms supersedes everyone else's ability to live their lives in a fear-from-gun-violence manner. I am not sure that is what the Founders had in mind with the second amendment. Conservative Justices used to agree: