Anonymous wrote:We would all be just fine without any assault weapons.

Anonymous wrote:If most of the opposition to gun control comes from the southern GOP, wouldn't it make sense for the rational states to let the South go its own way? If it wants to be a pro-gun Jesusland theocracy, what do I in New England care?

nothing

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The American people want to end access to this weaponry.

They don’t. The Daily analyzed this concept. I’ll try to find the episode.

They do NRA. Sorry. Bye bye assault weapons. You'll be fine without them. Relax.

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

Hey gun nut. There’s a reason your fellow “responsible gun owner” mass shooter last night selected the gun he did. Point and spray your victims.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

The American people want to end access to this weaponry.

They don’t. The Daily analyzed this concept. I’ll try to find the episode.

The American people want to end access to this weaponry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maine has one of the laxest gun laws in the country. Amazing this guy could go to mutiiple locations, open fire, and not one "good guy with a gun" could take him out.

Actually seeing as how Maine has a strong gun culture, I am very surprised none of his targets had a gun and shot back.

If you can't beat them, you have to join them.

Uvalde was the end of the good guy with a gun theory. When trained law enforcement financed by tax payer dollars won't even take on theis ridiculous weapons, it is time for them to go. (Again...they were banned before and the world continued to spin)

AR15 rifles were never “banned,” as opposed to having restrictions on new sales.

In Uvalde, the craven, despicable, cowards who swore to uphold the law and protect others hid in fear and refused to allow others who were willing to take up the task to do so.

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: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.

The solution is escalation. Got it…

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.

What kind of training and sight adjustments were needed to kill 20 first graders? Or 19 fourth graders? Was ‘point and shoot’ not adequate in those cases?