I get where mace is coming from. he's trying to come up with solutions and is getting mocked by people who, let's be honest here, don't really know the specifics of what we are talking about. many of us know the point we want to get to, but we don't the specific verbiage.
It’s just deflection. Used every time. Either start on about mental health or semantics of guns.
“That’s not an assault weapon”….
We get it and you should get the point being made.
I agree it can be a deflection. but mace is a good guy who has legitimate questions about what people are proposing.
A good guy with a gun...that's all we need in the end to stop these events. Anyway, not trying to be an ass, but it's tiring. We've all had this conversation a hundred times and every time it comes down to someone accidentally mis-labeling assault rifle or using the word ban. Then it's a battle back and forth over frivolous shit that shouldn't matter. The point is, why is ownership of a semi-auto rifle or handgun a right we are willing to place higher than the right for our children to be safe?
well said....jesus christ I can't believe we have to repeat this every fucking time a school gets shot up
I think some of those you/we engage with have the same frustrations.
It sounds like the police were outgunned at first. I really can't believe that police aren't more vocal about these weapons in the hands of the public.
I think that would immediately trigger a don't back the blue response and you'd see a lot of those blue line flags taken down, if the cops started vocalizing that guns are bad.
From a vocal minority only.
I wouldn't expect police chiefs to come forward and say "guns are bad" I would expect them to say "we cannot adequately defend ourselves when criminals have access to weapons more powerful than we carry".
They have been saying that for years that's why some precincts are set up with full on military hardware. The answer is for the cops to gun up!
Ever since that armed robbery in California years ago, police agencies have been outfitted with more fire power, but the problem is they aren't patrolling the hallways of your kid's school with that semi-auto assault rifle draped across their shoulder and decked out in full body armor. Our police would need to be outfitted like our military on foreign soil in order to properly engage most of these fucking asshole mass shooters. Is that the next "solution"? Military presence at schools like we're in a war torn country. I fully believe that a lot of people think that is the answer and want their kids going to school with shit like that as the standard.
We are in a war torn country. This doesn't happen in civilized nations. This is why our daughter goes to private school. If it becomes a thing to have armed guards in full battle gear, we will probably be homeschooling.
I get where mace is coming from. he's trying to come up with solutions and is getting mocked by people who, let's be honest here, don't really know the specifics of what we are talking about. many of us know the point we want to get to, but we don't the specific verbiage.
It’s just deflection. Used every time. Either start on about mental health or semantics of guns.
“That’s not an assault weapon”….
We get it and you should get the point being made.
I agree it can be a deflection. but mace is a good guy who has legitimate questions about what people are proposing.
A good guy with a gun...that's all we need in the end to stop these events. Anyway, not trying to be an ass, but it's tiring. We've all had this conversation a hundred times and every time it comes down to someone accidentally mis-labeling assault rifle or using the word ban. Then it's a battle back and forth over frivolous shit that shouldn't matter. The point is, why is ownership of a semi-auto rifle or handgun a right we are willing to place higher than the right for our children to be safe?
I understand what you are saying. completely. However, maybe these frivolous arguments wouldn't occur if we would learn the correct verbiage when entering a discussion? how can a discussion be had about something like that if we don't first understand the language. this is why it always comes down to the 2A'ers thinking "THE LEFT IS COMING FOR ALL YOUR GUNS". because that's how it's presented, and the onus is somehow on them to decipher what it is we're talking about.
it's really no different than the right arguing about something as broad as "late term abortions", and then it turns into a kerfuffle about what that exactly means. it's because they don't know what they are talking about. or, as the left assumes, it's coded language for "THE RIGHT IS TRYING TO BAN ALL ABORTIONS FROM CONCEPTION". which is also (many times) false.
If you explained your argument in the minutest detail the goalposts would be moved.
It sounds like the police were outgunned at first. I really can't believe that police aren't more vocal about these weapons in the hands of the public.
I think that would immediately trigger a don't back the blue response and you'd see a lot of those blue line flags taken down, if the cops started vocalizing that guns are bad.
From a vocal minority only.
I wouldn't expect police chiefs to come forward and say "guns are bad" I would expect them to say "we cannot adequately defend ourselves when criminals have access to weapons more powerful than we carry".
They have been saying that for years that's why some precincts are set up with full on military hardware. The answer is for the cops to gun up!
Ever since that armed robbery in California years ago, police agencies have been outfitted with more fire power, but the problem is they aren't patrolling the hallways of your kid's school with that semi-auto assault rifle draped across their shoulder and decked out in full body armor. Our police would need to be outfitted like our military on foreign soil in order to properly engage most of these fucking asshole mass shooters. Is that the next "solution"? Military presence at schools like we're in a war torn country. I fully believe that a lot of people think that is the answer and want their kids going to school with shit like that as the standard.
We are in a war torn country. This doesn't happen in civilized nations. This is why our daughter goes to private school. If it becomes a thing to have armed guards in full battle gear, we will probably be homeschooling.
To me it comes down to the people that like to play army. I guess we should be happy that they don't try to argue that the "right to bare arms" doesn't include tactical nukes.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I think "arm the teachers" and "good guy with a gun" people might take action movie scenes a bit too seriously. I'm trying to imagine my 5th grade teacher grabbing his keys, opening a drawer, pulling out a gun, and rolling into the hallway getting three perfect shots (2 to the chest and one to the head) of the shooter. And of course, with no chance of him tagging another teacher and two more kids in the process, while pee runs down his leg.
If I'm riding the LRT train and I see one gun, I'm not really hoping for armed good guys. More amateur gunslingers is probably going to lead to a large number of stray bullets. This shit is difficult for cops to get right in the heat of the moment; why do I want the person coming home from their office job or their shift at Target protecting the rest of us with gunfire? No thanks.
I remember watching movies and seeing the protagonist survive after someone would miss multiple shots and thinking "like anyone is that bad of a shot..." honestly, it was probably closer to accurate than I realized; or at least it would have been if more collateral damage would have been done.
Mutually assured destruction worked during the cold war...I don't think it works for the drunken masses.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I get where mace is coming from. he's trying to come up with solutions and is getting mocked by people who, let's be honest here, don't really know the specifics of what we are talking about. many of us know the point we want to get to, but we don't the specific verbiage.
It’s just deflection. Used every time. Either start on about mental health or semantics of guns.
“That’s not an assault weapon”….
We get it and you should get the point being made.
I agree it can be a deflection. but mace is a good guy who has legitimate questions about what people are proposing.
A good guy with a gun...that's all we need in the end to stop these events. Anyway, not trying to be an ass, but it's tiring. We've all had this conversation a hundred times and every time it comes down to someone accidentally mis-labeling assault rifle or using the word ban. Then it's a battle back and forth over frivolous shit that shouldn't matter. The point is, why is ownership of a semi-auto rifle or handgun a right we are willing to place higher than the right for our children to be safe?
I understand what you are saying. completely. However, maybe these frivolous arguments wouldn't occur if we would learn the correct verbiage when entering a discussion? how can a discussion be had about something like that if we don't first understand the language. this is why it always comes down to the 2A'ers thinking "THE LEFT IS COMING FOR ALL YOUR GUNS". because that's how it's presented, and the onus is somehow on them to decipher what it is we're talking about.
it's really no different than the right arguing about something as broad as "late term abortions", and then it turns into a kerfuffle about what that exactly means. it's because they don't know what they are talking about. or, as the left assumes, it's coded language for "THE RIGHT IS TRYING TO BAN ALL ABORTIONS FROM CONCEPTION". which is also (many times) false.
Agreed. It’s pretty hard to not take people for their words that they say. Like Beto saying specifically that he’s coming for your guns and wants them confiscated. Anyone who is not trying to politicize it, would not say it like that. It’s not based in reality. But yet, Abbott not saying a damn word about guns is also not realistic. Something needs to be done about stricter gun laws. There has to be a middle ground. Too many people in the world will not accept it. Blows my mind…
The gunman stormed passed an armed security guard and was in the school for an hour prior to being killed by a law enforcement tactical team. So much for the good guy with a gun.
But yet when I mention ban the features of assault rifles and AR15s that you don’t like, the response is just “no, ban AR15s!” If it’s not a specifics gun you’re trying to ban, then why are you against banning the features you don’t like? I brought that up and you said no. Which, again, leads me to believe you just don’t like a specific gun.
Actually YOU said "we don't need to ban AR-15s" and I said "Yeah we need to ban AR-15s"
That’s half of what I said. I said you don’t need to ban AR15s, ban the features that you don’t like. That would be more effective. I don’t understand why this is something you’re arguing about, I would think that would be good to know.
But yet when I mention ban the features of assault rifles and AR15s that you don’t like, the response is just “no, ban AR15s!” If it’s not a specifics gun you’re trying to ban, then why are you against banning the features you don’t like? I brought that up and you said no. Which, again, leads me to believe you just don’t like a specific gun.
Actually YOU said "we don't need to ban AR-15s" and I said "Yeah we need to ban AR-15s"
That’s half of what I said. I said you don’t need to ban AR15s, ban the features that you don’t like. That would be more effective. I don’t understand why this is something you’re arguing about, I would think that would be good to know.
because you misrepresented what I said....and if the features of an AR-15 are banned then the AR-15 is banned. You knew exactly what I/we meant.
Post edited by Gern Blansten on
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
The gunman stormed passed an armed security guard and was in the school for an hour prior to being killed by a law enforcement tactical team. So much for the good guy with a gun.
I read maybe an hour ago that it was actually a border guard who had been nearby who finally managed to get into the classroom and take him out.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I get where mace is coming from. he's trying to come up with solutions and is getting mocked by people who, let's be honest here, don't really know the specifics of what we are talking about. many of us know the point we want to get to, but we don't the specific verbiage.
I’ve believed for a while the biggest obstacle for gun restrictions is actually the anti gun crowd. That is a usually response when people who own guns and know what they are taking about want to give honest feedback. I really don’t get it.
Anyone who is upset should want to know the semantics. If you want to have a voice and create change, know what you’re taking about. I just don’t understand it, the whole dismissing input from gun owners, or just saying “you’re taking about semantics.” Yeah, because that’s important.
I actually do believe a lot of people think banning AR15s will help solve the problem, not knowing that there’s lots of guns capable of doing the same thing that don’t look even close to it. And even just a ban on assault rifles won’t be as effective, manufactures and people will find ways to around an “assault rifle” ban by adding or removing some cosmetic feature or something. That’s happened before, it’ll happen again
Most gun owners are willing to cooperate and come up with solutions and add input . They just never seem to be received well.
I get where mace is coming from. he's trying to come up with solutions and is getting mocked by people who, let's be honest here, don't really know the specifics of what we are talking about. many of us know the point we want to get to, but we don't the specific verbiage.
I’ve believed for a while the biggest obstacle for gun restrictions is actually the anti gun crowd. That is a usually response when people who own guns and know what they are taking about want to give honest feedback. I really don’t get it.
Anyone who is upset should want to know the semantics. If you want to have a voice and create change, know what you’re taking about. I just don’t understand it, the whole dismissing input from gun owners, or just saying “you’re taking about semantics.” Yeah, because that’s important.
I actually do believe a lot of people think banning AR15s will help solve the problem, not knowing that there’s lots of guns capable of doing the same thing that don’t look even close to it. And even just a ban on assault rifles won’t be as effective, manufactures and people will find ways to around an “assault rifle” ban by adding or removing some cosmetic feature or something. That’s happened before, it’ll happen again
Most gun owners are willing to cooperate and come up with solutions and add input . They just never seem to be received well.
no. no they aren't. SOME are. there are many people here that are willing to have an honest conversation. go to comments sections on your local newspaper social media pages and check out the discourse on there. that is more of a microcosm of what america is really like. this place is the anomoly.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
What kind of country and citizenry allows this to continue to happen?
a country in which the supreme court didn’t even rule on an individuals right to own a gun until 2008
Yep, that’s true.if you actually read the second amendment it makes more sense as to why an individual right had never been recognised. I suspect a lot of pro gun people don’t actually read it though
the old west had more gun control than today. Blanket bans inside cities was common
an individual right to own a gun has been recognised for less time than a right to an abortion. Saying it’s set in stone or not open to revision isn’t true
That depends on how you define gun control. The gun laws back then more often applied to open or concealed carrying in public. But purchasing and tracking firearms was much more free. Today you don’t have to register a gun made before 1898, and pretty much any other laws that apply like a wait period. I always assumed that’s because that’s when they started keeping records, but I could be wrong.
A lot of those restrictions today, like waiting period, registration, background checks are bypassed by private sales or gun shows
so basically laws already in place that have pretty broad agreement have loopholes so large it renders the laws pointless
if I’m a crazy person who would get flagged in a background check, illl just go to a gun show instead
I didn’t even know that gunshow loophole was a thing because all the states I’ve lived in have the same requirements at a gunshow or private party saw as a gun store would. I think the number of states with that loophole is getting smaller.
I could go to a flea market this weekend and come back with an arsenal without ever even showing anyone my ID.
I did that in Florida when I lived there and thought that was nuts and I'm a 2A guy...
Question... without trying to sound like a doosh... it's a legit question
What will it take for you to no longer be a "2A Guy?" And for my own understanding... what makes you a 2A guy?
What do you mean by “2A guy”? Do you mean stricter laws, or just owning guns in general?
I see the same circle every time this comes up. Most gun owners are okay with, or even want stronger gun laws and common sense laws. But when we disagree with 1 thing people lose their mind.
We don’t need to ban AR15s. One, from my understanding, they aren’t used in all these mass shootings which they are usually reported to have been used. That list that was posted earlier isn’t accurate. So it’s not like banning 1 gun is going to solve much. AR15 has become a common term to basically refer to assault rifles. It’s like saying Kleenex when you need a tissue.
Ive said before ban features. Ban high capacity magazines, or even detachable magazines. You can have an AR15, but with a fixed magazine of 5 rounds it poses a much smaller threat. But too often people want to ban a gun or features based off what it looks like and not the function.
Yeah we need to ban AR-15s....even the guy that invented them says so
for the sake of the argument....I referred to the AR-15 specifically because mace did. Not that is being used against me. Give me a fucking break.
I mentioned AR15 because 15 other people did. Even posted a list of school shootings involving an AR15, which wasn’t accurate. They were assault rifles. Not every assault rifle is an AR15. If you mean assault rifles/weapons, it doesn’t take 10000 extra words to say that like you said. So honestly I think most people who post this stuff would be excited to hear they announced a ban of AR 15s, not knowing there’s dozens of other guns you can buy that do the same thing. You may not be one of those people, I don’t know. Im not trying to criticize anyone. I really just don’t understand what you disagree with when i say “don’t ban AR15s, ban features on an AR 15 that make it more deadly.” That would obviously apply to all guns. That’s a bigger, more effecting broader ban. But because a gun supporter suggested it you’re against it or something?
I get where mace is coming from. he's trying to come up with solutions and is getting mocked by people who, let's be honest here, don't really know the specifics of what we are talking about. many of us know the point we want to get to, but we don't the specific verbiage.
I’ve believed for a while the biggest obstacle for gun restrictions is actually the anti gun crowd. That is a usually response when people who own guns and know what they are taking about want to give honest feedback. I really don’t get it.
Anyone who is upset should want to know the semantics. If you want to have a voice and create change, know what you’re taking about. I just don’t understand it, the whole dismissing input from gun owners, or just saying “you’re taking about semantics.” Yeah, because that’s important.
I actually do believe a lot of people think banning AR15s will help solve the problem, not knowing that there’s lots of guns capable of doing the same thing that don’t look even close to it. And even just a ban on assault rifles won’t be as effective, manufactures and people will find ways to around an “assault rifle” ban by adding or removing some cosmetic feature or something. That’s happened before, it’ll happen again
Most gun owners are willing to cooperate and come up with solutions and add input . They just never seem to be received well.
no. no they aren't. SOME are. there are many people here that are willing to have an honest conversation. go to comments sections on your local newspaper social media pages and check out the discourse on there. that is more of a microcosm of what america is really like. this place is the anomoly.
i forgot to say that any time gun legislation is brought up by a democrat, the pro gun people automatically translate that to "they are gonna ban all the guns!!!!" and they hysterically throw that accusation around, thus losing the ability to have a reasonable discussion.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
But yet when I mention ban the features of assault rifles and AR15s that you don’t like, the response is just “no, ban AR15s!” If it’s not a specifics gun you’re trying to ban, then why are you against banning the features you don’t like? I brought that up and you said no. Which, again, leads me to believe you just don’t like a specific gun.
Actually YOU said "we don't need to ban AR-15s" and I said "Yeah we need to ban AR-15s"
That’s half of what I said. I said you don’t need to ban AR15s, ban the features that you don’t like. That would be more effective. I don’t understand why this is something you’re arguing about, I would think that would be good to know.
because you misrepresented what I said....and if the features of an AR-15 are banned then the AR-15 is banned. You knew exactly what I/we meant.
Honestly, I don’t. When most of what I see is “ban AR15s” over and over, I think that’s what they mean. If you mean ban assault rifles, then fine. But my advice I offered would be even more effective than that for the reasons I explained. So still don’t understand why this turns into an argument. I don’t care if someone doesn’t know the terminology or differences in guns. Just be open to learning and Not immediately dismiss people when they are offering suggestions.
Ban assault rifles. Fuck the semantics. Jesus christ.
I’m going to be that guy here, sorry…
Civilians don’t own Assault Rifles. This is part of the semantics and wording you’ll get into unfortunately.
Say ‘ban assault “type” weapons and their similar characteristics’ and you will get no hem and haw.
I completely understand what you mean when you said it but like someone else said there will be a merry go round about specifics but like I said, I understand what you mean and that should be understood.
I get where mace is coming from. he's trying to come up with solutions and is getting mocked by people who, let's be honest here, don't really know the specifics of what we are talking about. many of us know the point we want to get to, but we don't the specific verbiage.
I’ve believed for a while the biggest obstacle for gun restrictions is actually the anti gun crowd. That is a usually response when people who own guns and know what they are taking about want to give honest feedback. I really don’t get it.
Anyone who is upset should want to know the semantics. If you want to have a voice and create change, know what you’re taking about. I just don’t understand it, the whole dismissing input from gun owners, or just saying “you’re taking about semantics.” Yeah, because that’s important.
I actually do believe a lot of people think banning AR15s will help solve the problem, not knowing that there’s lots of guns capable of doing the same thing that don’t look even close to it. And even just a ban on assault rifles won’t be as effective, manufactures and people will find ways to around an “assault rifle” ban by adding or removing some cosmetic feature or something. That’s happened before, it’ll happen again
Most gun owners are willing to cooperate and come up with solutions and add input . They just never seem to be received well.
But yet when I mention ban the features of assault rifles and AR15s that you don’t like, the response is just “no, ban AR15s!” If
it’s not a specifics gun you’re trying to ban, then why are you against
banning the features you don’t like? I brought that up and you said no.
Which, again, leads me to believe you just don’t like a specific gun.
how about this? just ban all guns/cartriges with the CAPABILITIES of mass casualties without having to reload?
I'm not going to taking some damn class on gun specifics in order to procure the right to say that I'm sick to fucking death of having these weapons available so readily- weapons that have been used over and over again in mass killings. There is no reason anyone other than a soldier needs to possess such a weapon. I don't give a fuck what their specifics are- I just know (we all know) they are manufactured for the sole purpose of killing large numbers of people as quickly as possible. It does not require a degree in firearms technology or ballistics to understand this, let alone to be really sick to death of this happening over and over and over again.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
All this does is bring out the argument that the right to an abortion wasn't written in to the constitution, but go figure since it took another 150 years before women were allowed to even vote.
Limit clips to three rounds. For fucks sake, do you have to have a microbiology degree to want baby formula plants to produce safe baby formula? And to advocate for it? Just fucking stupid.
I was raised republican, father and brother hunted, dad had 3 guns in his top dresser drawer, they were not locked up. Anytime someone came over those guns would be the first thing I showed my friends. My favorite was his derringer, that little gun fascinated me till I moved. I target practiced with my father all the time. My father was suicidal with anger management issues. He should not have been able to touch a gun, period.
As I said before, gave up my only gun a couple months ago, don’t remember which shooting it was that flicked the switch, there’s so many I lose count. I felt like I contributed to a solution, as small as it was. So protecting the 2nd amendment means absolutely nothing to me any longer. It was simple. And now if the baseball bats we have all over the house or our pb doesn’t stop someone then it was meant to be.
Some of you say you will never change your mind while others defend every stupid fucking word you learned in your youth about guns and your rights or worse you made these choices in adulthood. Everyone has the ability to change.
I get where mace is coming from. he's trying to come up with solutions and is getting mocked by people who, let's be honest here, don't really know the specifics of what we are talking about. many of us know the point we want to get to, but we don't the specific verbiage.
I’ve believed for a while the biggest obstacle for gun restrictions is actually the anti gun crowd. That is a usually response when people who own guns and know what they are taking about want to give honest feedback. I really don’t get it.
Anyone who is upset should want to know the semantics. If you want to have a voice and create change, know what you’re taking about. I just don’t understand it, the whole dismissing input from gun owners, or just saying “you’re taking about semantics.” Yeah, because that’s important.
I actually do believe a lot of people think banning AR15s will help solve the problem, not knowing that there’s lots of guns capable of doing the same thing that don’t look even close to it. And even just a ban on assault rifles won’t be as effective, manufactures and people will find ways to around an “assault rifle” ban by adding or removing some cosmetic feature or something. That’s happened before, it’ll happen again
Most gun owners are willing to cooperate and come up with solutions and add input . They just never seem to be received well.
No, what’s important is to make sure that children can go to school without the fear of dying. When someone loses a child they don’t want to hear about semantics as the coffin as tiny as you can imagine is being lowered into the ground.
Let me ask you something, how is it that you’re able to back away from the ugly realities and begin your explanation processes so quickly after these events? I promise this is a sincere question. I’m really wondering why you feel the need to defend something so meaningless in the big scheme of things? It’s an inanimate object that requires a human to activate it.
I do believe that people kill people - so people just shouldn’t have guns. Certainly not an easy task but it’s got to start somewhere at sometime.
Comments
www.headstonesband.com
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
www.headstonesband.com
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
If I'm riding the LRT train and I see one gun, I'm not really hoping for armed good guys. More amateur gunslingers is probably going to lead to a large number of stray bullets. This shit is difficult for cops to get right in the heat of the moment; why do I want the person coming home from their office job or their shift at Target protecting the rest of us with gunfire? No thanks.
I remember watching movies and seeing the protagonist survive after someone would miss multiple shots and thinking "like anyone is that bad of a shot..." honestly, it was probably closer to accurate than I realized; or at least it would have been if more collateral damage would have been done.
Mutually assured destruction worked during the cold war...I don't think it works for the drunken masses.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
www.headstonesband.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.yahoo.com/news/breakdown-gun-terminology-help-discussions-221859783.html
A breakdown of gun terminology to help you in discussions on mass shootings and debates over gun contro
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I read maybe an hour ago that it was actually a border guard who had been nearby who finally managed to get into the classroom and take him out.
Anyone who is upset should want to know the semantics. If you want to have a voice and create change, know what you’re taking about. I just don’t understand it, the whole dismissing input from gun owners, or just saying “you’re taking about semantics.” Yeah, because that’s important.
Most gun owners are willing to cooperate and come up with solutions and add input . They just never seem to be received well.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Im not trying to criticize anyone. I really just don’t understand what you disagree with when i say “don’t ban AR15s, ban features on an AR 15 that make it more deadly.” That would obviously apply to all guns. That’s a bigger, more effecting broader ban. But because a gun supporter suggested it you’re against it or something?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Civilians don’t own Assault Rifles. This is part of the semantics and wording you’ll get into unfortunately.
Say ‘ban assault “type” weapons and their similar characteristics’ and you will get no hem and haw.
I completely understand what you mean when you said it but like someone else said there will be a merry go round about specifics but like I said, I understand what you mean and that should be understood.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©