5 ms·

So no law change to require the police to do their job, no changes to provide any gun control. Just start fire fights in schools. All so some compensating assh

by olliej 4y ago

So no law change to require the police to do their job, no changes to provide any gun control. Just start fire fights in schools. All so some compensating assholes can play weekend warriors and pretend that they’re Rambo. I bet something as minimal as tying gun ownership to signing up to be enlisted in the event of war would get rid of a bunch.

jleyank 4y ago
There you go talking about that well-regulated militia again...
- olliej 4y ago
  So you agree that there’s the well regulated militia that the 2nd amendment talks about?
  - jleyank 4y ago
    Only if you call the National Guard a militia. There is little or no organization or record-keeping related to gun ownership in the US as I recall. If you want to be a strict constitutionist (sp?), creating a registry of what-you-have, where-you-are and how-you-re-trained would be in consonance with a well-regulated militia. Folks would scream bloody murder if anybody tried that.
    - 0daystock 4y ago
      In this context, “well-regulated” meant “in good working order” - not literally regulated by a governing body.
      - jleyank 4y ago
        Unless either of one has a tardis, we don’t know the intent of that phrase. Inferences can be made, but it’s hardly “good working order” without knowing who is available and where. There were no significant weapons differences then but they certainly are now. “Who’sgot the horse” comes to mind as the additional info needed to run a militia.
        0daystock 4y ago
        > Unless either of one has a tardis, we don’t know the intent of that phrase. We don't need a time machine, we can read other letters and correspondence from the time to make such inferences. > Inferences can be made, but it’s hardly “good working order” without knowing who is available and where. According to whom? You? Are you a constitutional scholar, or something? > There were no significant weapons differences then but they certainly are now. “Who’sgot the horse” comes to mind as the additional info needed to run a militia. Same meaningless argument could be made about free speech and the 1st Amendment. Certainly we didn't have social media and Twitter back then, so we should heavily regulate them, maybe even outright ban them, right?
krapp 4y ago
It's the United States, what did you expect? The American solution after any mass shooting is always to protect the guns.
0daystock 4y ago
Can you cite some examples of lawful concealed handgun carriers that "start fire fights"? Doesn't even have to be in schools - any examples will do.
- olliej 4y ago
  No, I’m saying that if you put a bunch of people in a confined area who aren’t trained to be shot at with automatic weaponry, I hardly expect it to be a one-shot-one-kill scenario.
  - 0daystock 4y ago
    Agreed (except the "automatic" weapon part), but the article has some assuring facts: > Armed teachers would be required to undergo criminal background checks and receive eight hours of additional training each subsequent year. I would be in favor of even more training, frankly. Owning a gun is already a serious responsibility; using it in defense of others is an existential concern.
    - olliej 4y ago
      Yeah, schools - especially in these states that are promoting armed teachers - are already under funded, so I assume that these pro-guns-in-school states will be requiring teachers to buy their own guns, pay for their own training, etc. There have already been numerous cases of teachers and "school resource"/police officers beating kids, I'm sure adding a gun won't go wrong. Now for your repeat of the facetious claims that an AR-15 is not "automatic". An "consumer" AR-15 is ArmaLite's realization that by making a semi-automatic trigger pull killing weapon - an AR-15 is not a self defence weapon - they could make a huge profit from wannabe Rambos. But it's still automatic. I've used plenty of non-automatic weapons on many occasions (if you need to be able to shoot lots of time when hunting, you need to learn to shoot), and there is no way that I could ever get any of those rifles to anywhere in the vicinity of 45/minute. I don't care if a weapon is fully- or semi- automatic, it's automatic. The purpose of an AR-15 is to kill people. The "Semi" automatic mode fires at 45 rounds a minute, which is more than needed for self defense or hunting (unless you suck at it). That's ignoring bump stocks, which pro-school shooting folk are still trying to make legal again.

by olliej 4y ago

jleyank 4y ago

There you go talking about that well-regulated militia again...

olliej 4y ago
So you agree that there’s the well regulated militia that the 2nd amendment talks about?
- jleyank 4y ago
  Only if you call the National Guard a militia. There is little or no organization or record-keeping related to gun ownership in the US as I recall. If you want to be a strict constitutionist (sp?), creating a registry of what-you-have, where-you-are and how-you-re-trained would be in consonance with a well-regulated militia. Folks would scream bloody murder if anybody tried that.
  - 0daystock 4y ago
    In this context, “well-regulated” meant “in good working order” - not literally regulated by a governing body.
    - jleyank 4y ago
      Unless either of one has a tardis, we don’t know the intent of that phrase. Inferences can be made, but it’s hardly “good working order” without knowing who is available and where. There were no significant weapons differences then but they certainly are now. “Who’sgot the horse” comes to mind as the additional info needed to run a militia.
      - 0daystock 4y ago
        > Unless either of one has a tardis, we don’t know the intent of that phrase. We don't need a time machine, we can read other letters and correspondence from the time to make such inferences. > Inferences can be made, but it’s hardly “good working order” without knowing who is available and where. According to whom? You? Are you a constitutional scholar, or something? > There were no significant weapons differences then but they certainly are now. “Who’sgot the horse” comes to mind as the additional info needed to run a militia. Same meaningless argument could be made about free speech and the 1st Amendment. Certainly we didn't have social media and Twitter back then, so we should heavily regulate them, maybe even outright ban them, right?

krapp 4y ago

It's the United States, what did you expect? The American solution after any mass shooting is always to protect the guns.

0daystock 4y ago

Can you cite some examples of lawful concealed handgun carriers that "start fire fights"? Doesn't even have to be in schools - any examples will do.

olliej 4y ago
No, I’m saying that if you put a bunch of people in a confined area who aren’t trained to be shot at with automatic weaponry, I hardly expect it to be a one-shot-one-kill scenario.
- 0daystock 4y ago
  Agreed (except the "automatic" weapon part), but the article has some assuring facts: > Armed teachers would be required to undergo criminal background checks and receive eight hours of additional training each subsequent year. I would be in favor of even more training, frankly. Owning a gun is already a serious responsibility; using it in defense of others is an existential concern.
  - olliej 4y ago
    Yeah, schools - especially in these states that are promoting armed teachers - are already under funded, so I assume that these pro-guns-in-school states will be requiring teachers to buy their own guns, pay for their own training, etc. There have already been numerous cases of teachers and "school resource"/police officers beating kids, I'm sure adding a gun won't go wrong. Now for your repeat of the facetious claims that an AR-15 is not "automatic". An "consumer" AR-15 is ArmaLite's realization that by making a semi-automatic trigger pull killing weapon - an AR-15 is not a self defence weapon - they could make a huge profit from wannabe Rambos. But it's still automatic. I've used plenty of non-automatic weapons on many occasions (if you need to be able to shoot lots of time when hunting, you need to learn to shoot), and there is no way that I could ever get any of those rifles to anywhere in the vicinity of 45/minute. I don't care if a weapon is fully- or semi- automatic, it's automatic. The purpose of an AR-15 is to kill people. The "Semi" automatic mode fires at 45 rounds a minute, which is more than needed for self defense or hunting (unless you suck at it). That's ignoring bump stocks, which pro-school shooting folk are still trying to make legal again.