JoeWeber

Or MS-13 gangbangers. After all, it doesn't state "shall not be infringed" except for you. That is your position, right?

There wasn't one. There was a simple misunderstanding over a poorly drawn metaphor.

That's just plain nuts, professor. Why read the damn thing? We're all in the army now, SCOTUS said so.

Do you mean Democrats? For sure they'll lose.

Not faith. Hope. Hope that maybe, just maybe, it would be an inflection point. Wouldn't it be awesome if attacks became so rare that this conversation never happened? In this case, what's the real cost? Best I can tell it's just a small number of irrational hardcores being deprived access to unnecessary weapons. You aren't going to answer the question. I knew that upfront. Have a good evening.

Sorry. More BS. Here it is again. I'm no Christian and I make no decisions based on faith. You do. What Christian thing would you tell them? Let me guess, its Gods will, based on statistics?

Wouldn't think of it.

Grief Counselor, no. DZO, yes. You be the judge if there are similarities but all you are getting from me here is how I see the world. Now please answer the question in context. As a committed Christian what could you say?

Coreece, that's silly. The children are already dead. I'm thinking about how to be honest with the people living a new fresh hell. We'll never be fully off the hook for this insanity, if that is, you believe we are on the hook. But you might be able to look some poor horror ravaged mother in the eye and say you tried. You could say that we tried our best to get these weapons out of the hands of people who might do this sort of thing. We're sorry but we are trying and we wont stop. You're a committed Christian. What could you say?

Well, it is a religion and that's the problem. Brent will claim a constitutional right to shoot his bazooka at crows because he fears giving an inch. Disagree and he'll give you homework. If he asks for data he ignores it. He's really no different from Ron in that he is fully invested in his belief system.

There was no personal attack in that. That is simply what comes across when you claim that the second amendment conveys an individual right to own any weapon of any type, and apparently, for any purpose. The implication of that is that any negative impact on others be damned.

That's a glib and silly comment. Understanding it is the law now is not to say I agree that it is a good decision. In fact, I'd say it was asinine like Dred Scott, Plessy, Citizens United and more.

Nor do you. Heller is when "militia" and "keep and bear arms" lost a military meaning and suddenly any 3 nitwits with guns who anyone might claim were available to serve were now mopped in and approved to own and use any weapons left over from the latest The Men in Black. The weird thing is you really believe that owning ray guns and vaporizers is your constitutional right. The reality is that it's just the latest interpretation of an amendment that was written for a long ago time, not today. But you read only: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, fucking period, fucking ever, fuck you."

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. And, well yes obviously I suppose, you also see the last 14 words as being completely disconnected from the preceding 13?

Ignoring that those parents might not consider prohibition a bad thing, you're just struggling to find an equivalency. Now, if some asshole charged into first grade shaking a six pack of Bud Tall Boys and managed to waste some innocent kids with the foam you just might have a point.

Do you believe the second amendment, as you interpret it, would protect your right to buy and own guns that were undetectable by current technology and had no ballistic signature?

Well son, out here you hunt hogs with a knife.

Basically, the more mass shootings there are the better assault weapons look. Maybe it's just me being pollyannish, but I just can not imagine explaining to a room full of grieving parents that the increased number of first graders killed because the murderer used an assault weapon is statistically insignificant. What is insignificant, to my mind, is the cultural loss we'll incur if assault weapons are no longer sold. I'm a gun person and I believe in defending my home with firearms. Before skydiving I hunted constantly for Deer, Elk, Pheasants, Duck etc. etc. I get that part of it. But through any or all of it I could never see the use of an AR-15 for hunting or for home defense. It is simply an almost worse choice for either. Same with hand guns, in most hands. So yes, for me they are low hanging fruit and quite possibly the best place to start if we are ever going to say enough.

Pictures would work. You know, like the chart at the airport when they lose you luggage. Or simple explanations. Bolt action, good. No clip and 5 round capacity, good. Has an acronym for a name, maybe not good. I see it as easily done.

I guess I just don’t get the good news of assault weapons.

Derek, You reduced the problem to a simple question that no one is asking. But as long as that's where you went I'll ask you: what would be a ratio that would cause you to support a ban on assault weapons? 1 in a 1000? 1 in a 100? Or is it no number because its a constitutional right and thus immune? Joe

I know! Ron is Q! That's it, right? Did I win? What's my prize?

No, you should not have said that either. I absolutely feel, and believe, that our nations laws should be followed. But for certain you are referencing immigration and that gets us into confusing territory. Not so much about the mechanics of it but rather about how we citizens see it. I'm chill about immigration because I see huge upside to it. Mostly what I see are super hard working family people who not only work in Tysons awful chicken factories but also tend the local farms and operate the freakin' awesome food trucks here and there. I do not see them taking jobs from anyone, far from it. I see them taking jobs that are not getting filled otherwise. To my eye, that's a win for all of us. I do think we need to control our borders in a serious way. But we do and have been doing so for a long time. The thing is that last week and this week and next week are not evidence of how we handled the thing. Nothing going on in a year will make or break our nation. So I think we can stay chill, stay humane, keep tight to what makes Americans loved around the world and stop being assholes just because some fuck nut who crawled under the baseboards into the White House has so inspired us.

Sorry for the delay, I was absorbed by my favorite restaurants wine list. To be honest most of my thinking about assault type weapons has always been a bit emotional. As in what the fuck do you say to a room full of mothers of dead children if your true belief is that you, and the fuck who killed their kids, shouldn't be hindered in any way if your hearts desire is to purchase another such ridiculous gun because: second amendment. Nonetheless, there is data. To my eye what stands out is the numbers of victims per massacre. When it's assault weapons or high capacity pistols the numbers are usually high. Hence my view that banning those tools of massacre are low hanging fruit. I'll look at it more diligently tomorrow. Mother Jones - Mass Shootings Database, 1982 - 2019.htm