[retiredguy123]

After watching several of the news conferences on the event, it seems to me that the media needs to hire more Monday morning quarterbacks. Not.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by blueash

That is an insidiously wrong statement pushed by some of those of the Christian faith. This country was founded by a bunch of nearly agnostic men who wanted financial and political control over this territory. They had absolutely no disagreement with England over theological concerns and in fact were far LESS religious than the monarchy which claimed to derive its legitimacy from Jesus et al.

Jefferson removed all Jesus is God references from his Bible, actually cut those passages out with a knife. Our Constitution has exactly two references to religion and both strongly state that religious affiliation has no place in our governance.

The ethic of the founders was not rigid evangelical Christianity is was instead based on liberal ideology of natural rights as proposed by Locke and others. The founders were so against religious dogma determining United States governance that they made sure the Post Office, one of the few functions of the Federal Government at the time, operated on Sunday, you know the Christian day of rest and prayer on which you shall refrain from work and keep it holy, the Post Office functioned on Sunday the same as any other day of the week.

" In 1828, the Kentucky Senator Richard M. Johnson, chairman of the Senate Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads and a devout Baptist, declared any federal attempt to give preference to the Christian Sabbath to be unconstitutional. The line between church and state when it came to Sunday mail delivery, he argued, "cannot be too strongly drawn." "

No, what has happened is that once again the real history of the US is being subverted by many who wish to believe that what they now hold true was held true in the 18th century.
Thomas Paine called Christianity a fable. Many were simply Deists, a religious belief that a God does exist but that he [or she] is not actively involved in our day to day life and that "human experience and rationality—rather than religious dogma and mystery—determine the validity of human beliefs."

That was overwhelmingly the ethic of our founders and where it overlapped with the liberal Protestantism of the day, that was ok. Real history. You can look it up.

Perhaps the most impressive post that I have ever read on TOTV. It was very educational and well written. I rate it 3 Ks for triple Kudos!

[Johnsocat]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

ALL RIGHTS have limits and can be regulated.

Do you believe you should be allowed to own Nukes, Cruise missiles and M1 Abrams? Why not? That would certainly fit not being infringed on.

We are not talking about nukes, cruise missiles and tanks... we are talking about guns...
Disregard my point with semantics because that solves the problem under discussion?

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by billethkid

Why would anybody waste the time even thinking about an isolated case that no way in any way shape or form represents presence of ANY significance.

It is the use of extremes to prove a point. That fact that is relevant is that there are close to 400 Million guns in circulation. Less that 50 percent of the population owns a gun. About 5% of the population owns about 50% of those 400 million. So, 5% of the population (15 million people) own 200 million guns - or 15 million people own at least 15 guns each.

If you continue to refine the search, a very small percentage own hundreds of guns. And an even smaller percentage own thousands. But, they exist.

When I search for how many times have large caches of guns been found, there were 80 million hits. I didn't check all of them, I assume MOST are not relevant, most of them are duplicates, etc. But, it is NOT an isolated incident in this country.

[Madelaine Amee]

IT'S THE ASSAULT WEAPON STUPID! Nothing more/nothing less.

You can drone on all you like, but you cannot get away from the FACT that if the assault weapons were not available mass murders would be almost eliminated.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

The point is to compare the US gun violence to other countries' gun violence. That's the important point.

WRONG! Comparing our country to others is comparing apples to pumpkin pie. It's about time that "some" people start looking at their own back yard instead of over the fence at other folks pastures.

We have a very large land mass.
We have a large population
We have a very liberal PC system
We have much more freedom
We are individuals, not assimilated into one mind controlled by someone else
We have a very lenient justice system
We have many, many things that other countries do not, including an inferior education system, due mainly to "open minded" or fill in the blank_____ thought process, that has taken discipline away from the parent.
I could list many reasons, but to some it will always come back to "its the guns" because they do not know jack about guns or people and their nature.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Djean1981

It's cultural. No God in schools and no daddy at home. Social media and device addiction. This is the result. Narcissists willing to kill for attention..

Do you then really believe that there is MORE God and less single-parent families in Australia ,, Germany, and ALL the other world countries - because they are WAY less likely to have gun violence than the US. That theory does NOT seem to pass the logic or statistical test.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Johnsocat

We are not talking about nukes, cruise missiles and tanks... we are talking about guns...
Disregard my point with semantics because that solves the problem under discussion?

NO, we are talking about (the post I replied to) the 2nd amendment specifically not allowing limitations or restrictions. I suggest that not allowing automatic weapons is a restriction, and if automatic weapons are allowed, then rockets should be allowed, and if rockets, then Cruise. And why not airplanes, and if airplanes why not F35s. And not allowing functional tanks is a restriction in my "right" to arm myself to take back my government with the wrong party wins the election.

My post was exactly on the topic it was replied to (if yours, I don't recall, but it was 2nd amendment and restrictions on gun ownership).

However, the constitution does not specifically say that Tanks and Warplanes are off the table. So by the recent leaked decision of the SCOTUS that rights are not rights, that are not enumerated are not rights. Therefore, there is NO restriction or limit on the right to bare arms. Seems a pretty straight forward extrapolation.

You can't have it your way, and n to allow me to have mine. If I want to own a Tank in what way does the government have the right to deny me that weapon of choice? Where does the constitution say - except for tanks.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Better to visualize a semi-automatic HIGH-VELOCITY man-KILLING rifle with a 30 round banana clip (which SHOULD be illegal) At minimum, the clip should be illegal.

I never saw a 30 round "CLIP" but I have seen a 30 round magazine. Maybe the problem is that some folks don't know anything about the subject and make decisions based on flawed information. Maybe the information regarding police response is incomplete and we just don't know the details. Maybe we know nothing about that young ADULT's parents, or enough details about his mental condition.

Any way you look at it, it was not the fault of the guns used.

Like I said before, why penalize the majority for the acts of the minority?

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by Madelaine Amee

IT'S THE ASSAULT WEAPON STUPID! Nothing more/nothing less.

You can drone on all you like, but you cannot get away from the FACT that if the assault weapons were not available mass murders would be almost eliminated.

Assault weapons????

Is my 22cal rifle an assault weapon? I can do as much damage with it as someone with an AR-15. My rifle is not automatic, but I can buy a fully automatic BB gun that can KILL without even registering it or going through a background process.



Like I said before and will continue to repeat it, it's not the gun, it's the person. A person drives under the influence and kills someone. Do they take away everyone's cars? Perhaps the car drive can drive 200mph, so should only fast cars be taken away from everyone else?

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

WRONG! Comparing our country to others is comparing apples to pumpkin pie. It's about time that "some" people start looking at their own back yard instead of over the fence at other folks pastures.

We have a very large land mass.
We have a large population

If your point is population density, the US comes in around 100th place in the world. Otherwise, You will have to explain how population density or lack of it increases the number of children murdered in school.

We have a very liberal PC system
We have much more freedom

We are not even in the top 10 countries for personal freedom.

We are individuals, not assimilated into one mind controlled by someone else

I really had to pause and walk around a minute. !LOL!. Seriously, I can't even begin to estimate the thousands of times I have been told that me and people that believe like me (1/2 the population of our country) are mind controlled. Hmmm. Anyway, This goes back to the previous point you made, and which is not true, we are not even in 10th place for most personal freedom.

We have a very lenient justice system

Hmm, okay, I would say "broken" not lenient. And it is broken to favor rich white guys.

We have many, many things that other countries do not, including an inferior education system, due mainly to "open minded" or fill in the blank_____ thought process, that has taken discipline away from the parent.

You left off the "In my opinion". Many people will disagree with you - on content and causation.

I could list many reasons, but to some it will always come back to "its the guns" because they do not know jack about guns or people and their nature.

Hmm. No comment. I will have to take another vacation.

[Number 10 GI]

When you don't have access to a gun, get a knife. In China the average subject, notice I didn't say Citizen, cannot own firearms.

Outside the Americas, Knives Are Often the Weapon of Choice in Homicides
More than 130 people in Kunming, China, were injured when about ten men and women wielding knives began stabbing others at random

Outside the Americas, Knives Are Often the Weapon of Choice in Homicides | Smart News|
Smithsonian Magazine

Back in the late 80's I read a report, that I can't find now, reported there were more knife homicides in Mexico than homicides by all means (guns, knives, bludgeons, fists, feet, motor vehicles, etc.) for the same time frame in the U.S.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

And at the time it was argued it was possible for a militia to use muzzle loaders to take back a rogue government.

I expect AR15's against the new XM5 will be found lacking. I expect 9MM against a M1 Abrams will be found lacking. On and On.

Are you suggesting citizens should have Cruise missiles? Why not automatic weapons? Why not F35's? After all, if the constitution - specifically the 2nd amendment - wants to be sure the populous can take back a rogue government , then it would seem to follow the citizens should be allowed to be equally armed.

Let's look at Ukraine - are we sending them civilian weapons? No, we are depleting our military arsenal because they do not have enough weapons locally capable of defending against a modern military.

So, unless you want access to Cruise, M1 Abrams, F35's and more, your argument is some what lacking.

I will completely agree there are many places in the US where a person may need a weapon to protect themselves and their loved ones. I have NO problem with that, or them. I question the need of a citizen to have 1,000 to 5,000 weapons stashed in the survival bunker. I question the need for a private citizen to own and M1 Abrams.

Do you?

When did the discussion get anywhere near what you are talking about? When did one person with something that resembled an AR-15 shooting up a school, suddenly morph into a discussion about owning a bunker full of guns or nukes?

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

Interestingly, the fastest demographic buying firearms are women. Additionally, women make up a higher percentage seeking professional training in handling firearms. As a certified firearms instructor I am seeing this pattern. More women are also getting into the competitive shooting sports and I think that's great. I mentioned previously I'm the co-founder of the US Womens Shooting Academy. I've taken a woman who had never shot a handgun and after 7 lessons she was pulling from the holster in under a second and hitting a target at 21 feet. I will also note she didn't break a nail!

My wife and I obtained our permits-to-carry in Minnesota some 15 years ago now. My wife hadn't fired a handgun much; maybe four or five times before we took the training. Training in Minnesota at the time was one day of classroom work, followed by a half-day at the range the following day. My wife's handgun was a .38 Special Taurus with a 1 7/8" barrel. Each student was required to fire a total of 50 rounds from various ranges.

She sort of stole the show. All the macho guy types with their Glock 17s and whatever else were often wildly inaccurate, while my wife calmly put bullet after bullet into the color, many of them inside the 10 ring. I recall our instructor took a look at her target, shook his head and said "I sure as hell don't want to be standing in front of HER".

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Sorry this is also a myth.

Many of the "founding fathers" were atheists. And the theists were often (mostly?) Puritans (Calvinist's and was based on the Holiness movement) that would never consider what we consider Christians to be Christians today. Women were little more than possessions, etc. Maybe you would like to start "testing" women charged with witch craft? They came here specifically to escape the Church of Englands persecution, and they could persecute anyone not toeing the line to their beliefs.

And if you want Christian beliefs in government, lets start with feeding the poor, giving housing to the homeless, forgiving those that transgress against us, not killing our enemies. You know all those pesky things Jesus told us to do, but evangelicals don't want to do, and instead refer back to the old testament and repeatedly quote the "thous shall nots" and not Jesus saying "thou shalt.

And another point, would you clarifying which Bible you want to make law, and which interpretation of it? Since there are over 200 Christian denominations in the US alone, and over 45,000 in the world.

And does the Pope get a seat in the Christian White House? After all, there are 1.5 billion Catholics and only maybe a 1/2 million Protestants (divided up between 45,000 different interpretations.)

So, I am just. curious, is it YOUR religion you want made law?

Now, could we get back to guns being used to kill children in class rooms for the past 20 years?

"Christians" make up in total about 20% of the worlds population. Yet, some how the other 80% of the world's population are not murdering their children regularly in schools. There are always the occasional wacko dictator, or rebels, or whatever that kills children or others. But, Only in America do we appear to endorse muting children in schools regularly. I say appear, since we have had 20 years to do something about it, and so far we can't agree on anything. 20 years...

Nice twist on the facts. Very articulate, but very erroneous too.