Why aren't law abiding citizen allowed to own nuclear missiles ? That's a clear breach of their 2nd amendment and civil liberty rights.
Printable View
Why aren't law abiding citizen allowed to own nuclear missiles ? That's a clear breach of their 2nd amendment and civil liberty rights.
I see the difference. And we also held tobacco companies to account when they knew for years that their product killed people, and did nothing to curb it's use. The states won over by suing to recoup the healthcare costs for people affected by use of the product. See any parallels there with, I dunno, spree shooting victims?Quote:
Originally Posted by moondog-sparky
Drop a few civil suits with discovery on any major assault rifle manufacturer in the US and I guarantee you'll find material as incriminating as what came out of the tobacco industry investigations.
And how is it misuse? Firing an AR-15 rapidly into a bunch of targets is literally what it's designed for. The targets just happen to be human beings. What else is an AR-15 designed for? Picking squirrels off the fence post?
Except...outside the US....it's 2019.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott G.
And civil liberties? I suck up the oppression of my civil liberties twice a day when i put on my legally compulsory bicycle helmet, despite the havoc it creates with my hair. But again, in the rest of the world they wear seat belts in cars. Civil liberties are less important than not flying through the windscreen if you crash. I think civil liberties are less important than not getting shot. Again, the US has an obsession with civil liberties and the constitution that seems weird to me as a non-US citizen.
It's not that i don't appreciate the sacrifices and struggles of people before me for my current rights. But they are my current rights. Yes, i take them for granted. It's 2019...it would be rude not to.
Why is that the case in the US? The UK didn't find it hard. Wasn't hard in Australia. It's working in NZ now. I'm sure crooks hold on to theirs. It doesn't matter. It's a policy that works despite that. Gun deaths go down. They just do. You don't have to get guns out of society, you just have to make them uncommon.Quote:
Originally Posted by jclay
I like the taxation argument, but i suspect it would end up like Greece, where Google Earth shows swimming pools everywhere, but for taxation purposes almost no one has a swimming pool. Taxing the bejesus out of ammunition would be much easier to implement too.Quote:
Originally Posted by sk_tle
Yes it is 2019. And this is the confusing part to the whole rights argument. People are standing on their rights to bear arms, via a constitutional amendment, in circumstances where the rationale for that right went out the window a very long time ago. There is a standing army paid for by the federal government (a quite sizable one in fact) and a navy and air force. Not to mention various intelligence organisations. What the hell is a well regulated militia, noting there is not such a thing in any event (setting aside a few flag waving survialist nuts worried about a black President and a new world order or some demented BS like that), actually going to do in the face of overwhelming force? The logic behind the right is dead and buried. If the very thing under pinning the right is gone, then get rid of the right. The right is the only thing standing in the way of protecting people from harm (somewhat ironically).
Remove the majority of guns from circulation and licence the remainder for those things people profess a love of doing (target shooting, hunting etc). We don't have a right to bear arms in Australia, but people still have guns for sport shooting, hunting, farming etc and the right to have those guns is heavily regulated. Just because you don't have a right doesn't mean you can't own a gun.
But, none of this will happen and people will keep being shot.
-- you can tax, make it a crime or wtf.., but until mega money is held accountable for the destruction they create / change mind-set for "my constitutional right and self-preservation:
pounding sand down a rat hole is sooo more effective...
-- aginst the fuc-ing law period... to own a weapon of mass-destruction for any reason... no way to rationalize a reason..
i read all the above and again ask, "have you ever seen the rain or been wet," i have...
ronnie been there done that
I am happy to have misunderstood the intent of your Q.Quote:
Originally Posted by moondog-sparky
Why the case here? In a very abridged nutshell, The Marlboro Man and a rapidly changing world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colinmclelland
Expanding a very little bit: The individualistic Frontier Mentality that is still very much alive in the US. The notion that individuals should be able to do pretty much anything they want regardless of the cost to the society. And fear, chiefly (and ironically) found largely in white, males who's position of social and economic primacy is being challenged by a rapidly changing society; competition from women and non-whites, loss of blue collar jobs, an increasing concentration of wealth in a smaller and smaller percentage of society; that sort of thing. We're a gun-centric society and the messages start getting absorbed at a very young age. Having a “kick ass” firearm gives a lot of folks a sense of power. Obama hit the nail on the head when he made this comment: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Politically it was an unfortunate move but absolutely spot on.
Surely there's a sociology professor on the list that could provide a better summary but those are among the foundational elements. It's insanity of course, but no less real.
I think there is a good chance there will be an increase in gun control laws. Eventually. There just needs to be enough people to support the idea. It is a numbers game. The NRA created a very extreme interpretation of the 2nd amendment with accompanying arguments but their rein can only continue if enough people agree. They don’t need a majority to maintain control as Republicans are masters of that. But as some point there will be a tipping point when a sustaining majority of people will see the connection between the almost unlimited sales of a weapon designed to kill as many people as fast as possible and a bunch of people actually getting killed quickly. Getting better gun control laws requires voting out Republicans in congress – especially those in the Senate. That may be a challenge but not an impossibility.
So it took over 200 posts for someone (thanks Ronnie) to call these what they are. If we all start calling them Weapons of Mass Destruction and not sporting goods, toys or hunting weapons we might get to a solution. Sorry, but that's what they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by ron l edmiston
Mike
Quote:
Originally Posted by ron l edmiston
Thank you Ronnie.
this. we are so weird here, and we make mad excuses for our weirdness. its becoming downright silly hearing fools try to hold onto reasons for their weapons fetishes.Quote:
Originally Posted by BBB
so much fantasy, so much bluster, not so much reason. lots of good talking points in here. lots of folks eloquently saying the bullshit i try to say. if i didnt know better, its almost like the majority of Americans dont own guns or like them or support their overuse. so a strong minority with lots of bluster is keeping this thing alive. why? so you can target shoot and brag to your buddies how long your rifle is? as i write this, a neighbor shoots his guns, a sure sign of freedom if ever there was one, now where is my silence? i move to the country so i didnt have to hear people.
Regarding 2A, why is it that the well regulated part is completely overlooked by 2A folks? It's pretty clear. It's right there.
so you say people are generally defective, but you still think we should give them guns, more easily than cars? great idea. why is this the right so many folks hold onto? why dont people use their right to grow their own food, or any of the other things that would make a person much more free from the external world. its not freedom folks care about, its their toys, and somebody telling them what toys they can or cannot have.Quote:
Originally Posted by moondog-sparky
why is this the right folks care so much more about? why?
makes perfect sense.
Even if you don't explicitly ban assault weapons, whether background checks , red flag laws etc, will result in a reduction in gun related deaths just from preventing some suicides. From a fatality point of view, assault weapons and mass shootings are only a small part of the problem and to get hung up on assault weapons, we may miss an opportunity to make some real headway versus gun related deaths.
Here's what I've observed.Quote:
Originally Posted by e-RICHIE
I attended a small liberal arts college in VT. Students were largely elite, in one way or another. Meanwhile, the people in town largely ate what they could kill, in one way or another. The two groups coexisted in close proximity and some degree of interdependency, like most small college towns.
As a kid in Central MA, I grew up near firearms, so guns were not unfamiliar to me upon arrival at school. As a financial aid student, one of my jobs was working the graveyard shift in the campus security booth, so more proximity to guns and familiarity with people who carry every day, etc.
This is just context.
To your question...
I knew a guy at school who had an extraordinary collection of vintage rifles. One-of-a-kind Civil War era black powder stuff. He invited me to the hills to fire off these noise makers and put holes in coffee cans, and I came away feeling lucky I didn't lose a finger, hand, or arm. Why did he need any of these old rifles? I guess it's the same question for a guy who has a Sachs, a Weigle, a Bayliss, etc. It simply becomes an interest, a fascination, a hobby, a compulsion. It seems harmless enough, but does anyone really *NEED* any of these bikes in the first place? Granted, the bikes are unlikely weapons, but the impulse to collect is similar.
I knew another guy who transferred to my school from UVM where he had been president of the Young Republicans. He was a great wit, and more of an adult than a lot of others on campus. I enjoyed his company, and our girlfriends were friends. He invited me to the range when his new handgun arrived. Nothing fancy, might have been a Glock? Had a magazine. In any case, after taking my turn I asked him - "Is it legal to keep this on campus" and he gave me the old raised eyebrow. "Dude, I've got like 10 of these in my room. Don't tell anyone, ok?" Fabulous. If this guy was a cyclist, he wasn't collecting esoteric steel frames - he was stockpiling Taiwanese plastic. It was like he had a Trek, Specialized, Giant, Cannondale... maybe a Diamondback and a Raleigh for good measure. Just a whole collection of contemporary handguns. "Why so many?" A: "How many wrenches are in your dad's toolbox?" I won't go into details here, but suffice to say a new policy was quickly formalized re: on-campus registration and storage of pew-pew devices and no one was injured or insulted or exposed in the process...
So why does anyone need an AR? Why does anyone *need* a Bruce Gordon frame? To the person who wants one, it's just a bit nicer, or better, or different, than whatever they have now. They envision that it will work just right at some time and place they hope to visit. "I need to fit 32s" = "I need semi auto" in the mind of a gun lover. Every one else is running 32s, I want to try it too. Everyone else is just a little bit more comfy on the downhill, I want that too. My current ride won't fit 32s, so I need a new frame that will... The other guy at the range can land a nice cluster at 100 yards, I need that too. Never mind putting in more miles, more practice, I want to buy satisfaction now. You know this guy. Slippery slope, next thing you know the spare bedroom is full of bikes. Or guns. Including ARs.
And the opportunity to customize guns is even greater than it is with bikes. Handles, sights, endless mods, on and on and on...
ARs are like snow bikes with, like 4" tires. They do something that other bikes don't do. So of course, some people want them.
Now if someone posted that Chuck and Nancy were seriously advancing legislation to limit the number of bikes one person can own, or the tire capacity of a frame, we'd all say "that's preposterous - I can do whatever I want! I can own as many bikes as I want! This is America, and you cannot infringe on my god-given right to happiness. And bikes are happiness, dammit!"
And that's pretty much where we are at with automatic and semi-automatic guns and firearms in general. The N+1 mindset may actually be stronger for gun types...
Happiness, for a lot of folks, is a warm gun. Bang bang, shoot shoot.
The moral of the story: this has nothing to do with rational behavior.
As Ronnie and others have rightly, rationally, fairly stated: No one really needs an AR, or whatever.
Gun nuts will make a range of arguments, from personal safety to preparing for Armageddon. The more discrete gun nuts don't post, they keep their position quiet - because the Feds are reading this board right now and planning to come take their collection away! etc. etc. Some powerful and insidious forces have convinced a lot of people that their PERCEIVED 2A right is worth an awful lot.
Looking forward, if we can unbundle the knee-jerk reaction to background checks and some very limited restrictions on new purchases, we can make an incremental change for the better in this country. A majority of gun owners agree with this position. I also like the tax on ammo idea, too - use it to create a fund to deal with the liability. Run it like the Truth campaign after the big tobacco settlement.
Glad to say, I also have friends and acquaintances, who I have accompanied to the range or the rifle club, who have turned a page and started to downsize. "I really didn't need the 1917. I never shoot it, it's no use around the house, I don't want it around my kids - It was interesting to own, but now I want it gone..." etc. etc. Exactly like some guys we know who achieve peak bike ownership... the personal pendulum swings both ways, especially for those who can take a long look in the mirror every now and then.
In closing... Dear gun friends: No one is coming for your guns. Chill on the rhetoric. Take a long look in the mirror. Do the patriotic thing and take a leadership position in your community toward responsible gun ownership. The NRA could have been unstoppable if they had adopted this stance in the first place. But instead the NRA took the unsustainable, indefensible position of "guns for anyone and everyone without limit" - and it is rapidly becoming obvious to nation at large that this is folly.
The leading Democratic Presidential Candidate wants to outlaw the ownership of 'assault weapons'...however that's defined.Quote:
Originally Posted by TTX1
Joe Biden Outlines His Plan to Fight Gun Violence | NowThis - YouTube
He also seems to want to require fingerprint scan technology on all new guns, which many people don't want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgaddis
Respectfully, "whataboutism" isn't a useful position.
It's a lot easier for all of us to say what we don't agree with than to prescribe what should be done.
Care to take a shot at the latter option?
In regard to Biden. He's a politician. He's happy to test this position at this point in the campaign and adapt later. In any case - What does his position have to do with what I posted?
The comparisons and veers to other things (my bicycles, meals at The French Laundry, a shirt from Jermyn Street,) are fine. At this point I expect them as a counterpoint. So my question for these people with the antique firearms all the way up to those who collect WMD's might be better phrased by asking, why do you need the bullets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TTX1
I agree, no one needs assault type weapons except the military and police. I've fired them at ranges, and enjoyed it, but for the sake of the public, no, we don't need them.
Why do some collect firearms? Why do some collect knifes, stamps, dead butterflies or dolls?
Who knows?
But to the point: Don't blame a particular party, the President of the NRA. It's the politicians we elect to the House & Senate who make the laws.
The President doesn't, the NRA doesn't.
And NRA DOES NOT REPRESENT the average gun owner.
But If the NRA has influence via lobbying, it's our damn elected officials who take the money or are swayed.
But bottom line: voting Americans (all parties, I repeat ALL PARTIES) want them, and the politicians who want to keep their jobs follow what their voters want.
Everything else is the blame game and finger pointing.
Why aren't cigarettes banned? Same reason.
Why do you need tires for your bikes?Quote:
Originally Posted by e-RICHIE
Enjoy your firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by dgaddis
Go make noise and play pretend.
Cowboys and indians.
Or some war reenactment stuff.
I'm out of this thread.
I honestly don’t know what to do. But as far as what Biden has to do with what you said, you said “no one is coming to take your guns” but that’s exactly what he’s currently saying he’ll do...at least he says he’s coming for assault weapons, which again, I don’t know how that’s defined exactly. But most victims of gun violence aren’t even killed by “assault weapons” (which most people picture as AK/AR style rifles). Most are killed by pistols. Technically the Dayton shooter used a pistol.Quote:
Originally Posted by TTX1
According to this chart from 2010-2014 more people were killed by shotguns than by rifles, but you never hear anyone wanting to ban shotguns. Even ol’ Biden has said no one can take his shotgun. Knives killed way more than shotguns and rifles combined.
FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
The only gun I own is a Red Rider Carbide Action BB gun. It won’t even put a hole in an empty soda can unless you’re within ~15ft of the thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by e-RICHIE
I’m just offering another perspective since most folks on this forum lean left (including myself). We don’t want an echo chamber/bubble right? Diversity is good and all that right?
Sorry, my response to this point was hidden in a needlessly lengthy and somewhat pedantic series of analogies.Quote:
Originally Posted by e-RICHIE
The explanation for a majority of these WMD owners and advocates is: There is no rational explanation. They can't give you an answer you'll find satisfying.
Why do some people have WWII half tracks? A: Because they can.
ARs and all the rest are really no different. With very few exceptions, no matter what these guys say, the only true answer is: Because they can.
It's a tautological argument that needs to end.
Listen to your own link. I took ~ 3 minutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by dgaddis
His position is: Outlaw sales of new automatics and provide a buy back program. I heard nothing about mandatory confiscation or "coming for your guns".
Go watch your own link and listen closely, please. This is exactly the cognitive dissonance that must end in order to make progress.
As for the biometric thing... I think it's a bit much, probably a negotiating position. "OK, we'll give up mandatory biometrics on all new guns, but we must have comprehensive background checks on new purchases"
Let's focus on what's achievable and resist the distractions.
Background checks are achievable. Restrictions on new AR purchases are achievable. Adopting the policies that are similar to what's been done before in this very country, as well as Australia, etc., are achievable.
First, and very importantly, there is no talk of automatics in the whole three minutes - the talk is of “assault weapons”. Automatics are already virtually illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by TTX1
As far as mandatory confiscation:
0:15 in - assault weapons should be “illegal to be sold or owned”
1:15 - when asked what about people who say a Biden administration means they’re going to come for my guns - “Bingo! You’re right if you have an assault weapon. They should be illegal, period.”
So if they’re illegal to own, “period”, exactly what does that mean for all the assault weapons already out there?
And again, what exactly is an assault weapon? And that’s a sincere question, I don’t know a lot about guns.
I'll take a swing: assault weapon would be a rifle initially made for military use-to kill people. (or in MA- if it looks like a military weapon, even if it's not automatic).Quote:
Originally Posted by dgaddis
Different from a rifle made for hunting animals.
Would say a Glock or SigSauer (hand gun) be considered an assault weapon? By my wide definition above, I guess so.
It will get complicated quickly.
I'll disagree. I served in the USMC and during that time became familiar with the M16A2. I thought it was a fine weapon and once I was discharged I purchased an AR15. Why? Because it was accurate and I was very comfortable with the way it worked. I would think that is the case for a lot of veterans. It's also very versatile....it's easy to change from the standard caliber to a larger one by swapping the upper receiver. The AR type rifle is one of, if not the, most popular rifles in use in the US. Edited to add: I no longer hunt but if I did, I would have no problem using an AR with a different upper receiver.Quote:
Originally Posted by TTX1
And there's the $64,000 question. The previous Federal "assault weapons ban" was a joke IMO. It defined an "assault weapon" as a semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine that had two or more of the following; folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash hider or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one, grenade launcher. Manufacturers simply took the same rifle, changed a few items and it was no longer an "assault weapon"...i.e. remove the flash hider and install a thumbhole stock. The politicians love to tell you how good it was but even the FBI said that it did essentially nothing to reduce crime. As has been said, "assault weapons" are not the first choice for most people committing crimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by dgaddis
Attachment 112796
In the rest of the world there wouldn't be any calls for more research...
This is funny/not funny at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by BBB
Quote:
Originally Posted by davids
You know how some people refer to motorcycles as "bikes" and some people refer to bicycles as "bikes?" It's like that. Assault rifles, as defined in the common lexicon (like in the dictionary) is both a military rifle capable of either automatic or semi-automatic fire AND a semi-automatic rifle that resembles the military weapon. 2A supporters and AR lovers like to take a pedantic stance and berate anti-gun lefties for mischaracterizing the weapons that are commonly being the defacto choice of mass shooters. And anti-gun lefties are latching onto the scary term to rally support because it's a whole fucking lot easier to get people amped about banning assault rifles than it is to have a nuanced debate over what aspects of guns and gun ownership should be regulated for the greater good. And while people get lost in the swirl of semantics, the lack of common nomenclature, and, most dishearteningly (as demonstrated in this thread) a large gulf in perspective as to what the actual problem is, we continue to show the world that if there's one thing we're good at in the U, S, of A, it's putting holes in each other. So, and not to sound like a dick, this whole conversation here and out in the real world would go a lot better if people would stop harping on the labels we use and start focusing on the characteristics of what makes some guns particularly well suited to inflicting maximum damage to maximum targets.Quote:
Originally Posted by dgaddis
Also, for what it's worth, my grandfather (an expert marksman) trained me to shoot and care for a variety of firearms. I grew up shooting, really enjoyed it and got damn good, if I may say so. I get the desire to collect (my collecting vices aren't restricted to bikes) and the enjoyment of shooting. But the data is pretty clear. The USA is unique among our peers in this problem and something needs to be done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jclay
Quote:
Originally Posted by jclay
Quote:
Originally Posted by jclay
Disparaging others over the use of “assault weapon”, or arguing over what is/isn't an “assault weapon”, is used as chaff and to derail any and all discussions by those want to keep them. It also introduces ambiguity and the ability to modify the appearance of firearms in order to circumvent regulations, as other have pointed out.Quote:
Originally Posted by ron l edmiston
In some posts I specified “centerfire” as that covers the seriously powerful cartridges, as opposed to rimfire cartridges like conventional .22 cal (as in 22 short and long rifle). But even that introduces ambiguity and there are some pretty hot rimfire cartridges in other calibers. And if a ban on centerfire semi autos was actually brought into being you can bet that we'd see the development of major calibers in rimfire very quickly.
So let's make it easy, based on functionality and implicit rate of fire: Total ban on civilian possession of all auto, select-fire and semi-automatic firearms.
That leaves wheelguns (revolvers), bolt action and pump action weapons. That's plenty of firepower for hunting, target shooting and home/personal defense; and those should be heavily regulated as they are in other advanced countries.
Neither are likely to happen any time soon, if ever, but to my mind that's the way to frame things and is the sensible course to take if we're serious about tackling the problem.
I’ll chime in for a bit regarding the injury and death statistics from the CDC’s 2017 annual report and I’ll admit that it’s a bit disturbing when you do the math. 2,813,503 of our 326,213,213 fellow Americans died in 2017...1.22% of the deaths were firearms related. Firearm deaths totaled 39,773 in 2017...(60% suicide, 37% assault, 3% accident).
The charts below go into greater detail, but for the “highlights”, we roughly lost 854,390 people to heart disease, 599,108 to cancer, 121,404 to Alzheimer’s disease, 73,990 to drug overdoses, 47,173 to suicide (23,854 related to firearms), 40,231 to car accidents and 35,823 to alcohol abuse...the balance of the causes of death are in the charts.
I don’t understand the hesitancy to regulate an industry that contributes in one way or another, to the deaths of a measurable amount of the US population, year after year. In simpler terms as I am a simple person, we don’t allow people to get behind the wheel of a car without a formal process of registration, training, examination, licensing and insurance dictating the process. I need a photo ID to drive a car and I have to renew my registration every year, right? Even with those controls in place, 40,231 people still managed to die in automobile accidents in 2017.
I really don’t understood the rationale for how one can own and operate a firearm without a similar process in place and I have hope that the majority of firearms owners agree with this position and join in forcing our politicians to take action.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/n...r68_09-508.pdf
That would certainly help a ‘well regulated militia’ and I’ve had this discussion many times.Quote:
Originally Posted by sk_tle
Why can’t we drive armored cars with turret guns? Isn’t that our constitutional right?
My brother is what many people would consider a gun nut (owns an AR15, carries a Glock, owns many others).
Despite growing up in the same house and only two years apart, he feels like the world is so dangerous that he needs to be armed at all times. I have never felt I’ve needed a gun here or abroad (I’ve lived and travelled extensively in North Africa, the Middle East, Europe and Asia). He must think I’m like Mister Magoo unknowingly missing death at every step.
He is a smart and nice guy, but I’m afraid that he could crack like any of us under enough pressure.
I’ve jokingly suggested he wear an explosive vest as a crime deterrent.
with all true respect, and in the interest of dialogue... this would include ban on .17 hornady semi auto rat shooters? .22 Ruger Mk III target pistols? Semi-auto upland bird shotguns?Quote:
Originally Posted by jclay
As I've stated before, I think any limitation must involve a combination of action AND caliber... action alone does not encompass the destructive power of a firearm.
Yes. It's simpler and in so being, more ironclad. Pump, bolt and revolver actions can take care of farm/field necessities, home defense concerns, and sport shooting.Quote:
Originally Posted by monadnocky
That little .17 Hornet centerfire is a surprisingly fast and powerful cartridge. If smaller bore semi actions are legal we'd immediately see very hot loads made for them. While certainly not in the world of .223 and such, they are more lethal than folks commonly think.
But none of this will happen, not until a whole lot more innocents are slaughtered. People want their toys.
this, if i havent already said it previously in this thread, the pedantic crap people spout as humble brags about gun knowledge is so boring. lets focus on what the actual problem is. the problem is we have a dysfunctional social relationship to guns in this country that serves nobody at all but gun companies, and people are dying senselessly while others live in constant fear as a result. Whats great or free about either of those things? if someone sees the problem as something different, lets discuss that as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Strongin
FBI finds another one, preemptively:
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019...reat-jumbo.png
Ohio Man Threatened to Shoot Federal Agents, the F.B.I. found AR-15-style rifles and 10,000 rounds
They mention a man, I see a kid who just wiped his mum's milk out of the corner of his mouth.
This morning there was a shooting on the group ride I regularly do on Wednesdays. I'm coming down with a cold so I decided to do an easy spin this morning instead, but when I got down to Key Biscayne the roads were shut down.Quote:
Originally Posted by mzilliox
Miami Herald Article
Details are still unclear, but an altercation between a guy who often rides his motorcycle alongside the group taking photos and videos and one of the cyclists led to the cyclist being shot and in critical condition and the motorcyclist being detained. The fact that one of them was carrying while going out to enjoy a summer morning and that the altercation escalated to a shooting says a lot about our dysfunctional relationship with guns.
I understand people have died to preserve freedom and that´s how HIstory has been written BUT... freedom is not watching kids die because an idiot decided to promote apocalypse. You can´t prevent this guy from buying guns under "i want it so i can have it" legislation. This guy is not a criminal... he is just on the verge of losing it and You won´t know untill it happens. One can chose not to watch kids die so the right to shoot big guns is preserved; that´s freedom too.
I understand the american idea is having what you want and not only what you need. It made for a great civilization and a barrier for tiranny. Otoh there should be limits to "want"... The limits are here. Environment is dying. Life is threatened. If our ancestors didn´t preserve their lives and famlies we would not be here.
Sand then I'm greeted by this: Revealed: Republican lawmaker aided group training young men for 'biblical warfare' | World news | The Guardian
Don't know what to say, just shaking my head.