• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

There Weren't any US Mass Shootings Yesterday

Media_Truth

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,650
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
As the death count is still rising from the three horrendous mass shootings in the past week, and innocent victims continue to suffer in hospital beds, you have to ask yourself why gun owners are so stubborn about assault-style weapons. You would think that responsible, law-abiding gun owners who own common-sense weapons would be the first ones to desire a ban on assault-style weapons.

These weapons have no use for hunting. They are also impractical for self-defense. Their sole purpose is to kill people, and a lot of people.

Undoubtedly, we'll see the usual quibbling about definitions of assault weapons, types of triggers, gun add-ons, etc. If these folks are such experts on these weapons, they are the exact people that should draft the meaningful legislation to ban them nationwide.

We will see the usual 2nd Amendment references. C'mon - folks from the late 1700s would roll over in their graves, if they saw the carnage of our "civilized" society.

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Warrn Burger
Warren_e_burger_photo.jpeg

He declared on PBS that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

This quote is from 1991. Justice Burger's words ring even more TRUE today.
 
IMO, we have these sort of weapons to counter the criminal element [who have them] and the possibility of a tyrannical government or foreign invaders. [who have them]

We can't put that genie back in the bottle.
 
Media_Truth said:
As the death count is still rising from the three horrendous mass shootings in the past week, and innocent victims continue to suffer in hospital beds, you have to ask yourself why gun owners are so stubborn about assault-style weapons. You would think that responsible, law-abiding gun owners who own common-sense weapons would be the first ones to desire a ban on assault-style weapons.

These weapons have no use for hunting. They are also impractical for self-defense. Their sole purpose is to kill people, and a lot of people.

Undoubtedly, we'll see the usual quibbling about definitions of assault weapons, types of triggers, gun add-ons, etc. If these folks are such experts on these weapons, they are the exact people that should draft the meaningful legislation to ban them nationwide.

We will see the usual 2nd Amendment references. C'mon - folks from the late 1700s would roll over in their graves, if they saw the carnage of our "civilized" society.

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Warrn Burger
View attachment 67261497

He declared on PBS that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

This quote is from 1991. Justice Burger's words ring even more TRUE today.
Click to expand...

Any kind of gun control is too much for second amendment supporters. It should be obvious to everyone that no amount of mass killings will change their minds. Just ask turtledude, he'll tell ya'.
 
WCH said:
IMO, we have these sort of weapons to counter the criminal element [who have them] and the possibility of a tyrannical government or foreign invaders. [who have them]

We can't put that genie back in the bottle.
Click to expand...

I wish all those who believe this would go against our tyrannical government. I'm placing my money on the government in that particular confrontation. This to me is the standard bull**** reasoning we've heard for years and years.
 
bongsaway said:
Any kind of gun control is too much for second amendment supporters. It should be obvious to everyone that no amount of mass killings will change their minds. Just ask turtledude, he'll tell ya'.
Click to expand...

Any kind of crack down on sex trafficking rings is too much for progressive.

See, two can play at this stupid game of yours.
 
Media_Truth said:
As the death count is still rising from the three horrendous mass shootings in the past week, and innocent victims continue to suffer in hospital beds, you have to ask yourself why gun owners are so stubborn about assault-style weapons. You would think that responsible, law-abiding gun owners who own common-sense weapons would be the first ones to desire a ban on assault-style weapons.

These weapons have no use for hunting. They are also impractical for self-defense. Their sole purpose is to kill people, and a lot of people.

Undoubtedly, we'll see the usual quibbling about definitions of assault weapons, types of triggers, gun add-ons, etc. If these folks are such experts on these weapons, they are the exact people that should draft the meaningful legislation to ban them nationwide.

We will see the usual 2nd Amendment references. C'mon - folks from the late 1700s would roll over in their graves, if they saw the carnage of our "civilized" society.
Click to expand...

Anti-gunners usually have no clue what they are talking about - making up facts out of thin air diametrically opposite from the thru.

The AR15 platform has probably become the most commonly used hunting and sporting rifle - and certainly the most overwhelmingly common home defense rifle.

What would shock Americans in the 1700s would be the government restricting people from owning anything - particularly guns - any gun.
 
Oborosen said:
Any kind of crack down on sex trafficking rings is too much for progressive.

See, two can play at this stupid game of yours.
Click to expand...

I claim to be a progressive and cracking down on sex trafficking is fine with me. So much for your game.
 
WCH said:
It was the original intent. Not my fault you didn't learn history.

GunCite-Second Amendment-Original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment
Click to expand...

I see lots of dates from 1700 and 1800 hundred. I'm absolutely sure the founding fathers could see two hundred years into the future and imagine the carnage taking place today and saying to themselves, see, we did a good thing. The second amendment needs updating like the rest of our constitution. These founding fathers could have no earthly idea of what two hundred years into the future would bring and I'm going to go out on a limb and guess they would want to see some changes to their original document.
 
Any firearm that holds a magazine can very easily be made to be "high capacity." There are hundreds of millions such firearms in this country. I would estimate over 90% of handguns purchased for personal defense now are semi-autos that use magazines. At least over 50% of rifles are semi-autos that use a magazine as well as many shotguns.

Gun owners need to understand that if Democrats do gain control, they are going to pass laws declaring you are a felony criminal who should be imprisoned, made a felon and denied many rights including the right to vote, banned from many professions, and never allowed to own any firearm. Any gun owner who does not want the government taking your guns must vote Democratic in every election for every office.
 
Media_Truth said:
As the death count is still rising from the three horrendous mass shootings in the past week, and innocent victims continue to suffer in hospital beds, you have to ask yourself why gun owners are so stubborn about assault-style weapons. You would think that responsible, law-abiding gun owners who own common-sense weapons would be the first ones to desire a ban on assault-style weapons.

These weapons have no use for hunting. They are also impractical for self-defense. Their sole purpose is to kill people, and a lot of people.

Undoubtedly, we'll see the usual quibbling about definitions of assault weapons, types of triggers, gun add-ons, etc. If these folks are such experts on these weapons, they are the exact people that should draft the meaningful legislation to ban them nationwide.

We will see the usual 2nd Amendment references. C'mon - folks from the late 1700s would roll over in their graves, if they saw the carnage of our "civilized" society.

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Warrn Burger
View attachment 67261497

He declared on PBS that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

This quote is from 1991. Justice Burger's words ring even more TRUE today.
Click to expand...

(sigh).

Why do you think that the right to keep and bear arms has some kind of extremely narrow definition of "self-defense?"

It seems to me that your definition of self-defense is limited to protection from a mugger, robber, burglar, or some form of "personal" self-defense. That all someone would need is a simple handgun, that we don't need no "stinking military-style weapons."

That goes against the primary (albeit not the sole) motive, which was to have a pool of armed citizens who could be called up to serve in defense of the nation, or conversely to rise up and oppose government tyranny. There would have been no "revolution" had the people not had access to "military style" weapons.

Your argument seems to be founded on the idea that people don't need weapons capable of opposing government forces. That we are soooo enlightened only a fool or the insane would think the government could ever be a threat. Conversely, that even if the government did become a threat, the common citizen would have no chance against it anyway, no matter how well one was armed.

Well, I'd prefer the option of being armed well-enough to try to do so anyway. First, because history has many examples where a dedicated guerilla movement armed to the teeth and willing to act has successfully beaten more powerful and heavily armed government forces. Just look at Afghanistan. How many years have we been occupiers while an armed citizenry continues to fight?

Second, because I have the inherent right to self-defense. This right is self-enforceable, I do not need anyone's permission to do so.

Now I've said this before and it remains true to this day; I don't own a single gun. That's because I know the option to get one still exists if I ever felt the need to. But if any attempt to use emotional knee-jerk reactions to some "bad use" looks like it would succeed in reducing or eliminating my "options" by law? That would be the point when I might feel the need to become a "law-breaker."

Yes, there are other reasons for gun-owning, including but not limited to hunting, sport shooting, collecting, and yes, personal self-defense and defense of others. But the most important reason is the ability to extend self-defense and defense of others by having the ability to arm up in defense of the group, the town, even the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic.
 
Last edited:
Virtually all human rights, civil rights and democracy all are the result of the invention of guns that armed peasants.

Fascists, dictators, the rich and the powerful ALWAYS want to disarm ordinary people. The Democratic Party is the Fascist Party of the rich corporate fascists of the world who want to own everything and control everyone. When successful, the mass imprisonments and executions begins, followed by slaughtering increasing numbers of people.
 
Media_Truth said:
As the death count is still rising from the three horrendous mass shootings in the past week, and innocent victims continue to suffer in hospital beds, you have to ask yourself why gun owners are so stubborn about assault-style weapons. You would think that responsible, law-abiding gun owners who own common-sense weapons would be the first ones to desire a ban on assault-style weapons.

These weapons have no use for hunting. They are also impractical for self-defense. Their sole purpose is to kill people, and a lot of people.

Undoubtedly, we'll see the usual quibbling about definitions of assault weapons, types of triggers, gun add-ons, etc. If these folks are such experts on these weapons, they are the exact people that should draft the meaningful legislation to ban them nationwide.

We will see the usual 2nd Amendment references. C'mon - folks from the late 1700s would roll over in their graves, if they saw the carnage of our "civilized" society.

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Warrn Burger
View attachment 67261497

He declared on PBS that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

This quote is from 1991. Justice Burger's words ring even more TRUE today.
Click to expand...

There weren't any US mass shootings yesterday, but there was a mass knifing.

Time for some outrage over the lack of knife control legislation, don't you think?
 
One reason mass shootings are so lethal is the constant push by the government, corporate propaganda of the media and press, and by the super rich and powerful to convince people the government will protect you - and having laws that are extremely punitive against people protecting each other - has erased most of the sense of "we the people" as a united community of ordinary people that will look out for and protect each other.

Yet the premise is false as we see over and over and over again. The Pulse nightclub was one example. For 2 hours the police stayed outside - knowing allowing the wounded peasants inside to bleed to death. There were people in the WalMart who could have, but didn't, stop the shooter. There is little sense of we-the-people being a collective community of people.

To promote people agreeing to be forcibly disarmed, the government and corporate super rich are doing everything they possibly can to promote and protect mass shootings - successfully. The more "you can safely mass murder people here" signs that go up (Gun Free Zone signs), the more mass shootings there will be.

After each mass shooting, progressive fascists (most Democrats), the rich and powerful and the corporate propaganda outlets immediately again demand that people who could stop the shooter be disarmed. They NEVER propose anything whatsoever that would promote stopping the mass shooter from continuing to murder people. That is because they want the murders - the more the better - for their agenda of taking away as much power from people as they can.
 
bongsaway said:
…..The second amendment needs updating like the rest of our constitution.
Click to expand...

Your opinion noted.

These founding fathers could have no earthly idea of what two hundred years into the future would bring....
Click to expand...

No argument. Their crystal balls were no better than the ones we have today.

…...and I'm going to go out on a limb and guess they would want to see some changes to their original document.
Click to expand...

Well, it is pretty evident that something that they did want was that there should be an overwhelming change in public sentiment to make such a change (2/3 majority in both houses, and 3/4 of the states' legislatures). Since that type of support doesn't seem to exist, I suspect the founders would believe that a change is not warranted.
 
Media_Truth said:
As the death count is still rising from the three horrendous mass shootings in the past week, and innocent victims continue to suffer in hospital beds, you have to ask yourself why gun owners are so stubborn about assault-style weapons. You would think that responsible, law-abiding gun owners who own common-sense weapons would be the first ones to desire a ban on assault-style weapons.

These weapons have no use for hunting. They are also impractical for self-defense. Their sole purpose is to kill people, and a lot of people.

Undoubtedly, we'll see the usual quibbling about definitions of assault weapons, types of triggers, gun add-ons, etc. If these folks are such experts on these weapons, they are the exact people that should draft the meaningful legislation to ban them nationwide.

We will see the usual 2nd Amendment references. C'mon - folks from the late 1700s would roll over in their graves, if they saw the carnage of our "civilized" society.

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Warrn Burger
View attachment 67261497

He declared on PBS that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

This quote is from 1991. Justice Burger's words ring even more TRUE today.
Click to expand...


List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019 - Wikipedia
 
bongsaway said:
Any kind of gun control is too much for second amendment supporters. It should be obvious to everyone that no amount of mass killings will change their minds. Just ask turtledude, he'll tell ya'.
Click to expand...

If the slaughter of elementary school kids didn't change the gun nuts, nothing will. But of course, it doesn't effect them so they don't care, they are selfish
 
Sampson Simpson said:
If the slaughter of elementary school kids didn't change the gun nuts, nothing will. But of course, it doesn't effect them so they don't care, they are selfish
Click to expand...

Would they care if they were children of senior GOP officials?
 
Captain Adverse said:
(sigh).

Why do you think that the right to keep and bear arms has some kind of extremely narrow definition of "self-defense?"

It seems to me that your definition of self-defense is limited to protection from a mugger, robber, burglar, or some form of "personal" self-defense. That all someone would need is a simple handgun, that we don't need no "stinking military-style weapons."

That goes against the primary (albeit not the sole) motive, which was to have a pool of armed citizens who could be called up to serve in defense of the nation, or conversely to rise up and oppose government tyranny. There would have been no "revolution" had the people not had access to "military style" weapons.

Your argument seems to be founded on the idea that people don't need weapons capable of opposing government forces. That we are soooo enlightened only a fool or the insane would think the government could ever be a threat. Conversely, that even if the government did become a threat, the common citizen would have no chance against it anyway, no matter how well one was armed.

Well, I'd prefer the option of being armed well-enough to try to do so anyway. First, because history has many examples where a dedicated guerilla movement armed to the teeth and willing to act has successfully beaten more powerful and heavily armed government forces. Just look at Afghanistan. How many years have we been occupiers while an armed citizenry continues to fight?

Second, because I have the inherent right to self-defense. This right is self-enforceable, I do not need anyone's permission to do so.

Now I've said this before and it remains true to this day; I don't own a single gun. That's because I know the option to get one still exists if I ever felt the need to. But if any attempt to use emotional knee-jerk reactions to some "bad use" looks like it would succeed in reducing or eliminating my "options" by law? That would be the point when I might feel the need to become a "law-breaker."

Yes, there are other reasons for gun-owning, including but not limited to hunting, sport shooting, collecting, and yes, personal self-defense and defense of others. But the most important reason is the ability to extend self-defense and defense of others by having the ability to arm up in defense of the group, the town, even the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic.
Click to expand...

Shotguns, handguns, rifles can all be used for self-defense. I have a shotgun. Assault-style weapons - I think not. They are not even biblical, as Jesus stated, "two swords will be enough". He was not trying to arm against the Roman military, but only an isolated mugger or two on the road.

Chief justice Burger discusses the use of "military" weapons for defense in his Parade Magazine interview in 1990 --->

Warren Burger and NRA: Gun lobby’s big fraud on Second Amendment | The Milwaukee Independent

Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that. Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing — or to own automobiles. To “keep and bear arms” for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; “Saturday night specials” and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles.
...
If we are to stop this mindless homicidal carnage, is it unreasonable:

-to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
-to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
-that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
-to have a “ballistic fingerprint” of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so
that, if a bullet is found in a victim’s body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?
 
bongsaway said:
Any kind of gun control is too much for second amendment supporters. It should be obvious to everyone that no amount of mass killings will change their minds. Just ask turtledude, he'll tell ya'.
Click to expand...

So there's no point even talk about gun control (?). Bang, bang, bang, pew, pew, pew... bodies piling up, nothing changes, just more guns for everyone, yay !!!

And don't forget to pray and keep those victims (and relatives) in your mind - even when it's not helping, but you feel better if you do so :)
 
Media_Truth said:
Shotguns, handguns, rifles can all be used for self-defense. I have a shotgun. Assault-style weapons - I think not. They are not even biblical, as Jesus stated, "two swords will be enough". He was not trying to arm against the Roman military, but only an isolated mugger or two on the road.

Chief justice Burger discusses the use of "military" weapons for defense in his Parade Magazine interview in 1990 --->

Warren Burger and NRA: Gun lobby’s big fraud on Second Amendment | The Milwaukee Independent

Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that. Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing — or to own automobiles. To “keep and bear arms” for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; “Saturday night specials” and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles.
...
If we are to stop this mindless homicidal carnage, is it unreasonable:

-to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
-to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
-that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
-to have a “ballistic fingerprint” of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so
that, if a bullet is found in a victim’s body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?
Click to expand...

Hmmm... really?

my point over your head.png
 
Media_Truth said:
As the death count is still rising from the three horrendous mass shootings in the past week, and innocent victims continue to suffer in hospital beds, you have to ask yourself why gun owners are so stubborn about assault-style weapons. You would think that responsible, law-abiding gun owners who own common-sense weapons would be the first ones to desire a ban on assault-style weapons.

These weapons have no use for hunting. They are also impractical for self-defense. Their sole purpose is to kill people, and a lot of people.

Undoubtedly, we'll see the usual quibbling about definitions of assault weapons, types of triggers, gun add-ons, etc. If these folks are such experts on these weapons, they are the exact people that should draft the meaningful legislation to ban them nationwide.

We will see the usual 2nd Amendment references. C'mon - folks from the late 1700s would roll over in their graves, if they saw the carnage of our "civilized" society.

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Warrn Burger
View attachment 67261497

He declared on PBS that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

This quote is from 1991. Justice Burger's words ring even more TRUE today.
Click to expand...

You are right, there were no mass shootings yesterday. However, 100 people died from gun violence. Another 100 died today and another 100 will die tomorrow.
I agree, all automatic weapons such be banned.
If there isn't there should be a background check in every state.
Lastly, we should confiscate every illegal gun. It's probably an impossible task.
 
Media_Truth said:
As the death count is still rising from the three horrendous mass shootings in the past week, and innocent victims continue to suffer in hospital beds, you have to ask yourself why gun owners are so stubborn about assault-style weapons. You would think that responsible, law-abiding gun owners who own common-sense weapons would be the first ones to desire a ban on assault-style weapons.

These weapons have no use for hunting. They are also impractical for self-defense. Their sole purpose is to kill people, and a lot of people.

Undoubtedly, we'll see the usual quibbling about definitions of assault weapons, types of triggers, gun add-ons, etc. If these folks are such experts on these weapons, they are the exact people that should draft the meaningful legislation to ban them nationwide.

We will see the usual 2nd Amendment references. C'mon - folks from the late 1700s would roll over in their graves, if they saw the carnage of our "civilized" society.

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Warrn Burger
View attachment 67261497

He declared on PBS that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

This quote is from 1991. Justice Burger's words ring even more TRUE today.
Click to expand...

Burger was a mental midget in terms of other justices and a massive statist. He never could explain why the commerce clause justified government control. and you are lying yet again. Cops use the weapons you want to ban. That proves they are useful of self defense
 
bongsaway said:
I see lots of dates from 1700 and 1800 hundred. I'm absolutely sure the founding fathers could see two hundred years into the future and imagine the carnage taking place today and saying to themselves, see, we did a good thing. The second amendment needs updating like the rest of our constitution. These founding fathers could have no earthly idea of what two hundred years into the future would bring and I'm going to go out on a limb and guess they would want to see some changes to their original document.
Click to expand...

anyone who has a gun can envision one that shoots multiple shots faster-just as anyone who has a car can conceive of one that goes faster. The entire purpose of the second amendment was to prevent the new government from interfering with the ability of citizens to protect themselves from everything from criminals, Indians, or a "well regulated Militia"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom