Quote: @BigAl99 said:
Well if you can't differentiate based on form, fit and function then the answer is pretty obvious. You may want to come up with better arguments or you may loose it all, and future generations will think really you screwed up.
Uhhh, thats why people who understand the issue are saying theres no point in banning ar15s. Other then the aesthetics there’s really no difference between an AR and every other gun out there.
You wont be able to ban semiautomatic. There will be a revolution before you can take all the handguns and a huge chunk of the riffles.
FYI, we can stop head injuries in football if we ban tackling.
Quote: @savannahskol said:
@ Vikergirl said:
There was a massive fuck up in this situation, like epic proportion level clusterfuck. It was completely and utterly unacceptable to wait. To hear that parents were begging the police to do something is awful. If they would have gone in sooner, lives could have been saved. The fact that the border patrol went over the police to go in is unreal. The fact that Olivarez said that officers could have been shot is not a reason not to go in. Firefighters don't say we could get burned and not go in the house. They were also trained. This is just one hot, stinking mess.
I tend to agree.
But...What your saying, is...."it's anti-thetical/unimangiable for LEO to have NOT INTERVENED!"
(remember, YOU preferred social justice warriors intervening, post Georg Floyd)
So, tell me, post-Floyd, what would have your SJW's done differently, better?
LEO's HAVE BEEN BEAT OVER THE HEAD, FOR YEARS, FOR ANY ENGAGEMENT.....PRO/CON...
I'm saddened, but not shocked...that LEO waited, to intervene.
We have a Latino perp (celebrate, diversity!) murdering a Latino population (celebrate, diversity!) .
Lol with the ridiculousness and false equivalency. Police brutality is very much an issue. Their actions were inappropriate in relationship to George Floyd. There was an investigation, trial and verdict. The response in Uvalde by waiting and doing nothing, cost lives. The DOJ needs to look into this. If the police don't want to do anything during a school shooting with children involved they are in the wrong profession.
Quote: @AGRforever said:
@ BigAl99 said:
Well if you can't differentiate based on form, fit and function then the answer is pretty obvious. You may want to come up with better arguments or you may loose it all, and future generations will think really you screwed up.
Uhhh, thats why people who understand the issue are saying theres no point in banning ar15s. Other then the aesthetics there’s really no difference between an AR and every other gun out there.
You wont be able to ban semiautomatic. There will be a revolution before you can take all the handguns and a huge chunk of the riffles.
And if you can’t tell the difference, smoothbore muzzle loading were the arms being used when the original document was written. The threat of revolution, there are so many reasons, this is just another.
Quote: @BigAl99 said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ BigAl99 said:
Well if you can't differentiate based on form, fit and function then the answer is pretty obvious. You may want to come up with better arguments or you may loose it all, and future generations will think really you screwed up.
Uhhh, thats why people who understand the issue are saying theres no point in banning ar15s. Other then the aesthetics there’s really no difference between an AR and every other gun out there.
You wont be able to ban semiautomatic. There will be a revolution before you can take all the handguns and a huge chunk of the riffles.
And if you can’t tell the difference, smoothbore muzzle loading were the arms being used when the original document was written. The threat of revolution, there are so many reasons, this is just another.
And they were using goose feathers for pens, printing presses, smoke signals and actual spoken speech in reference to the 1st amendment. The world changes, whats your point?
Quote: @AGRforever said:
@ BigAl99 said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ BigAl99 said:
Well if you can't differentiate based on form, fit and function then the answer is pretty obvious. You may want to come up with better arguments or you may loose it all, and future generations will think really you screwed up.
Uhhh, thats why people who understand the issue are saying theres no point in banning ar15s. Other then the aesthetics there’s really no difference between an AR and every other gun out there.
You wont be able to ban semiautomatic. There will be a revolution before you can take all the handguns and a huge chunk of the riffles.
And if you can’t tell the difference, smoothbore muzzle loading were the arms being used when the original document was written. The threat of revolution, there are so many reasons, this is just another.
And they were using goose feathers for pens, printing presses, smoke signals and actual spoken speech in reference to the 1st amendment. The world changes, whats your point?
the evolution/adaptions/ interpretation of the Constitution only applies when it fits a certain narrative
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ BigAl99 said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ BigAl99 said:
Well if you can't differentiate based on form, fit and function then the answer is pretty obvious. You may want to come up with better arguments or you may loose it all, and future generations will think really you screwed up.
Uhhh, thats why people who understand the issue are saying theres no point in banning ar15s. Other then the aesthetics there’s really no difference between an AR and every other gun out there.
You wont be able to ban semiautomatic. There will be a revolution before you can take all the handguns and a huge chunk of the riffles.
And if you can’t tell the difference, smoothbore muzzle loading were the arms being used when the original document was written. The threat of revolution, there are so many reasons, this is just another.
And they were using goose feathers for pens, printing presses, smoke signals and actual spoken speech in reference to the 1st amendment. The world changes, whats your point?
the evolution/adaptions/ interpretation of the Constitution only applies when it fits a certain narrative
So you don't buy into Scalia's "originalism" and his precise literal interpretations. Seems you want it both ways, or just can't see the hypocrisy of your positions.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
The more I read and hear, the more I am questioning the situation, I can see 1 or 2 cops being cowards, but this whole situation baffles me. I can't imagine a scenario where my life would be more valuable than a child's.
And where did this shooter get the money for these guns and body armor, somebody had to know something was going on, of course maybe that was grandma?
Yup. Somewhere, someone gave those orders. And as we have learned, just following orders is a legitimate excuse nowadays.
This whole things stinks as well as being tragic. And it seems to much screw up to be just a screw up.
Quote: @Vikergirl said:
@ savannahskol said:
@ Vikergirl said:
There was a massive fuck up in this situation, like epic proportion level clusterfuck. It was completely and utterly unacceptable to wait. To hear that parents were begging the police to do something is awful. If they would have gone in sooner, lives could have been saved. The fact that the border patrol went over the police to go in is unreal. The fact that Olivarez said that officers could have been shot is not a reason not to go in. Firefighters don't say we could get burned and not go in the house. They were also trained. This is just one hot, stinking mess.
I tend to agree.
But...What your saying, is...."it's anti-thetical/unimangiable for LEO to have NOT INTERVENED!"
(remember, YOU preferred social justice warriors intervening, post Georg Floyd)
So, tell me, post-Floyd, what would have your SJW's done differently, better?
LEO's HAVE BEEN BEAT OVER THE HEAD, FOR YEARS, FOR ANY ENGAGEMENT.....PRO/CON...
I'm saddened, but not shocked...that LEO waited, to intervene.
We have a Latino perp (celebrate, diversity!) murdering a Latino population (celebrate, diversity!) .
Lol with the ridiculousness and false equivalency. Police brutality is very much an issue. Their actions were inappropriate in relationship to George Floyd. There was an investigation, trial and verdict. The response in Uvalde by waiting and doing nothing, cost lives. The DOJ needs to look into this. If the police don't want to do anything during a school shooting with children involved they are in the wrong profession.
I would strongly disagree on the DOJ. But I have a very bad feeling this is where it is going. We will have a federal police force by the end of the year. Or by election time.
The local police have problems, but at least they are somewhat answerable to the local people. A federal police force will be answerable only to politicians that are untouchable. And by untouchable, I mean Pelosi, McConnell type of untouchable. These clowns have no business being re-elected, but they are year after year. Imagine them running the police.
Florida’s red flag law, championed by Republicans, is taking guns from thousands of people
Twice a week from her courtroom, Florida 13th Circuit Court Judge Denise Pomponio decides who in Hillsborough County can no longer be trusted with a gun.
In just the last two months, she has taken away the firearm privileges of dozens of people, including a dad accused of threatening to “shoot everyone” at his son’s school, a woman who police say attempted suicide and then accidentally shot her boyfriend during a struggle for her revolver, a husband who allegedly fired multiple rounds in the street to “blow off steam” after losing a family member, a bullied 13-year-old witnesses overheard saying, “If all of 8th grade is missing tomorrow you will know why,” and a mother arrested for brandishing a handgun at another mom after a school bus incident between their daughters.
This is Florida’s “red flag” law in action. Passed in the wake of the horrific 2018 mass shooting at a Parkland high school, the state law provides police a path to ask a judge to temporarily bar dangerous individuals from possessing or purchasing a firearm. Since its creation, Florida judges have acted more than 8,000 times to keep guns out of the hands of people authorities deemed a risk to themselves or others, according to data maintained by the Office of the State Courts Administrator.
On Tuesday, Pomponio added another one to the list: A man accused of pointing two guns at his stepfather.
“He was enjoying the whole thing,” the stepfather told the courtroom. His stepson’s wife even filmed the encounter, he said. “He said he wanted to eff me up.” One of the guns was later found in the bed of the stepson’s 11-year-old brother, a sheriff’s deputy told the courtroom.
In the aftermath of recent massacres in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, New York, those looking to change the country’s gun laws see in Florida a blueprint to move forward – not only because leaders moved to restrict firearms, but because it emerged out of a Republican stronghold unofficially known as the “Gunshine State.”
“The Florida law is a good law, and it’s a signal of what’s possible,” Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, one of the most vocal advocates in Congress for gun control, said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”
In Florida, a red flag policy, also known as risk protection orders, was one piece of a sprawling gun reform package that then-Gov. Rick Scott signed into law just three weeks after a teenage gunman killed 17 people inside Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. It included $400 million in new spending for priorities like school security and mental health resources, and allowed trained school staff to carry firearms for the first time. Republican lawmakers also agreed to raise the age to own a gun to 21 and implemented a three-day waiting period to purchase most rifles.
“I knew the time for thoughts and prayers, although necessary, was not enough,” said Bill Galvano, a Republican and the former state senator who sponsored the legislation.
Galvano told CNN he began drafting the bill at his kitchen table after a tour of the carnage in Parkland. He incorporated ideas he had picked up from interviewing teachers and staff at the school. He was intent on including some gun safety reforms and focused on what he thought could pass. He was still learning how red flag laws worked when it was added to the draft.
Looking at the data on the people who had guns taken away in Florida, Galvano says, “You have to believe that makes a difference.”
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/01/politics/...index.html
|
