@FlawleZ you ever going to bother telling us how you are going to hardened the schools? Or has Tucker not told you that part yet?
Again, the AR-15 is a platform. It can be chambered in .22, and while still deadly, wouldn't be the first choice to commit mass murder. It could also be chambered in .308 and be higher powered than the "normal" 5.56/.223.
Trying to say an AR-15 is automatically an "offensive" weapon because police say they are outgunned is irrelevant to the fact that an AR-15 can be used as a defensive weapon. If someone is going to walk into my house to murder me, I'd much rather have an AR-15 chambered in 5.56/.223 than a .22 rimfire, or 9mm handgun. That would be a defensive use.
Y'all are getting into the weeds using vague and arbitrary terms. Stick to taxing, increasing age, stricter background checks, etc. Saying things like "offensive" is just a way people who you disagree with can move the goalposts.
It's not necessarily the shape of the gun that makes it powerful, it's typically the size of the cartridge paired with the length of the barrel. There's a reason why sawed-off shotguns are typically illegal even if not semi-automatic.
Take a step back and figure out what it is you want to accomplish, and then go from there. You want to ban every semi-automatic firearm? Then figure out the language that is going to cover all of those firearms. But saying "offensive" is a vague and arbitrary term that is just going to get your political opponents to move goal posts and bog you down with irrelevant language. Many people have definitely used an AR-15 as a purely "defensive" weapon in this country. So, saying "offensive" isn't helping your cause.
While I do not support banning all semi-automatic firearms, I'm not going to stand in anyone's way. I also won't sell any firearms that I own back, and I think there is close to zero chance that there is going to be active confiscation of semi-automatic firearms. If, somehow you were to successfully pass a law that called for an active confiscation of all semi-automatic firearms, you can be sure that people will die in that situation at best, and at worse could start the hot civil war that I'd prefer we avoid altogether.
To be clear, I think my political allies should safely own and learn to operate firearms because when the fascists come to murder you in your sleep, the police not only won't be there to protect you, some of them might be there in their civilian clothes or paramilitary uniforms. Anyone who talks about fascism, whether DeSantis or Abbott or any number of current Republicans who have actual power, but then hand-wave away the possibility of fascists doing what fascists do when they have power, are whistling past the graveyard on that one.
You can attempt to ban any and all firearms that you want. I don't think you're going to be successful, and I'm not going to oppose you, but I still believe it's a liberal own-goal. The fascists are still working to overthrow the government. And in case y'all haven't really listened to what the fascists are saying, their trajectory is murdering liberals as their "last stand to defend themselves". That's how fascists always greenlight murdering their fellow citizens.
Can we at least lock the doors so it's at least as difficult to get in as an average office building, apartment or hotel?
How many hotels have to been to where any random weirdo can just wander inside and go wherever he wants? This isn't outlandish technology.
Now nets dropping from the ceiling and other stuff I've seen batted around is a bit nuts...
What doors are we going to lock at playgrounds? What doors are we going to lock at soccer games, baseball games for kids?
My understanding is the door was locked, it just didn't actually latch. So the real question should be "Can we actually provide schools with enough money to fully and properly maintain their building?" I'm guessing the answer to that "NO." Too busy up arming the police to deal with all the NRA's toys.Can we at least lock the doors so it's at least as difficult to get in as an average office building, apartment or hotel?
How many hotels have to been to where any random weirdo can just wander inside and go wherever he wants? This isn't outlandish technology.
Now nets dropping from the ceiling and other stuff I've seen batted around is a bit nuts...
Many schools have out buildings and doors have to unlocked for kids to walk from one building to another.You can't protect everywhere so protect nowhere?
Demanding Hilton-level security on an elementary school isn't unreasonable or burdensome.
The hardcore 2nd Amendment geekboy fetishists are worried about the wrong people who will take their guns. When they get the fascist government they want, That government is NOT going to be happy with armed citizens. Sure, maybe it will start with disarming liberals and people of color and MAGA's will be fine with that. But then the fascists WILL turn on them and that “tyranny” they are so eager to fight will crush them.
Donald Trump: - Feb. 2018 - “Take the guns first, go through due process second,”, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court"
The hardcore 2nd Amendment geekboy fetishists are worried about the wrong people who will take their guns. When they get the fascist government they want, That government is NOT going to be happy with armed citizens. Sure, maybe it will start with disarming liberals and people of color and MAGA's will be fine with that. But then the fascists WILL turn on them and that “tyranny” they are so eager to fight will crush them.
Donald Trump: - Feb. 2018 - “Take the guns first, go through due process second,”, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court"
Close but it’s not the government we have to be concerned about, it’s the fascist with the guns we have to worry about, aka the gun nutters. They are the ones that don’t believe in democracy, they are the ones who think their rights trump everyone else’s, they are the ones who were silent when our capital was overran with insurrectionists.
The government is elected by the people and made up of the people, I’m not worried about the people, I’m worried about those who don’t even believe in government.
The idiots don’t even realize that they are the very thing they think they are protecting us from.
Democracy at the barrel of a gun isn’t democracy, it’s tyranny.
In a thread about mass shootings, discussing the fact that they occur places other than schools in response to your ideas about hardening schools doesn't contribute to the discussion?
The hardcore 2nd Amendment geekboy fetishists are worried about the wrong people who will take their guns. When they get the fascist government they want, That government is NOT going to be happy with armed citizens. Sure, maybe it will start with disarming liberals and people of color and MAGA's will be fine with that. But then the fascists WILL turn on them and that “tyranny” they are so eager to fight will crush them.
Donald Trump: - Feb. 2018 - “Take the guns first, go through due process second,”, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court"
Can we at least lock the doors so it's at least as difficult to get in as an average office building, apartment or hotel?
Property damage? Now you have conservatives' attention!Maybe I've watched too many movies or TV shows (can't honestly say I've ever tried it for myself), but I would have thought a gun could defeat a standard door lock?
Can't imagine that someone prepared to shoot small children would be deterred by the need to commit property-damage to gain entry.
Sure, are we going to allow people to sue other companies when their products are used to harm someone? If someone gets drunk and plows into people, can they sue the car manufacturer? How about suing a knife manufacturer if I'm stabbed by someone using one of their knives?Also remove protections gun manufacture have from lawsuits. Call it the DeSantis/Disney exemption. No special treatment for specific companies.
Sure, are we going to allow people to sue other companies when their products are used to harm someone? If someone gets drunk and plows into people, can they sue the car manufacturer? How about suing a knife manufacturer if I'm stabbed by someone using one of their knives?
Sure, are we going to allow people to sue other companies when their products are used to harm someone? If someone gets drunk and plows into people, can they sue the car manufacturer? How about suing a knife manufacturer if I'm stabbed by someone using one of their knives?
We’re any of these other products sole purpose of existing to kill, like guns are? or were they designed with other uses in mind? not to say they can’t be used to kill, but it’s not their intended use. can’t say the same about guns.
What doors are we going to lock at playgrounds? What doors are we going to lock at soccer games, baseball games for kids?
No it isn't but Uvalde already had thatYou can't protect everywhere so protect nowhere?
Demanding Hilton-level security on an elementary school isn't unreasonable or burdensome.
Sure, are we going to allow people to sue other companies when their products are used to harm someone? If someone gets drunk and plows into people, can they sue the car manufacturer? How about suing a knife manufacturer if I'm stabbed by someone using one of their knives?
Go back and look at the successful suit by Sandy Hook families against Remington. In that vein.Sure, are we going to allow people to sue other companies when their products are used to harm someone? If someone gets drunk and plows into people, can they sue the car manufacturer? How about suing a knife manufacturer if I'm stabbed by someone using one of their knives?
actually, we do.Sure, are we going to allow people to sue other companies when their products are used to harm someone? If someone gets drunk and plows into people, can they sue the car manufacturer? How about suing a knife manufacturer if I'm stabbed by someone using one of their knives?
On that score, something I'm puzzled about is why the European Court is obliging multiple car manufacturers to pay compensation for their fiddling of emissions tests, to people who bought their cars.
Surely the people who bought the cars aren't the ones who suffered the cost of that fiddling, they got the improved performance that it allowed, it was people _outside_ the car who had to breath in the excessive particulate/NOx emissions, ergo it's the rest of us who should be getting the compensation, not the car-owners, who are effectively part of the scam?
Also, I do think that maybe victims of dangerous drivers should be able to sue the state for issuing those drivers with driving licences, based on what seems to be an inadequate testing regime. Especially when a death is caused by a newly-qualified driver driving in an obviously-reckless manner.