JoeWeber

It's not certain that any limited regulation will turn into full scale confiscation. I want to keep my guns. I simply don't believe it is likely at all that banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines is the first step to my losing my guns. Not in America. To be completely honest, I think a complete ban isn't necessary. Derek V. is a friend. It might not seem it the way we disagree about assault weapons and the second amendment. But I know him to be a stand up guy. He's smart and without question we see eye to eye on some important safety issues. He spent six years in the military, is familiar and comfortable with assault weapons and I think stays current firing them. If someone in the neighborhood must have one he'd be a first choice. I don't know you personally and without question we are in full on disagreement on what the second amendment is about. But, you are clearly smart, you've spent 20 years as a Ranger, have an MBA, lock up your guns, aren't a religious extremist and are probably in the zero percent category for committing a mass shooting. Again, if someone on the block needs to own one you are a good choice. Who knows, maybe you'd be able to save me before you saw who it was. I think most people who think controlling access to assault weapons would see clear to certain people owning them. Honestly Brent, sometimes I think you'd be happy if they were sold in 3 packs at Costco and the ammo came in 10 gallon pails and react poorly, I agree. Surely there is some place short of the extremes where reasonable people can meet.

Because it's in quotes it's true? Because otherwise it's just self serving malarkey. I'll bite, which truth sayer are you quoting? Not true. My point is that faith based truth systems are fairly useless when it comes to addressing reality. You continue to dance around the question because there is nothing you could say beyond its gods will, they're in a better place and yada, yada, yada.

How much crazier can it get? Apparently it is all true and they really did have the orphaned baby fetched for a photo op. How could anyone look at the photo and not be ashamed of this President? What possibly could you be receiving from Trump that is worth the trade of our nations dignity?

What an embarrassment these people are for our country. Trump giving a grinning thumbs up and Melania smiling away holding an orphaned baby at the Hospital in El Paso. If the article is true the White House asked for the baby, who was previously discharged, to be brought to the hospital. Absolute sociopaths. Please, someone debunk this. As much as I loath Trump that would be better.

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.