School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain_Swoop said:
NRA board member Ted Nugent promotes ‘crisis actor’ conspiracy theory following Parkland shooting
The far-right musician also "liked" several comments claiming that Facebook was censoring the conspiracy.

https://thinkprogress.org/nra-board...ory-following-parkland-shooting-59d9d7a3d9b2/
Click to expand...

The made up facts about this kid just keep growing. From that article in the comments on Nugent's FB page: he's a recently arrested meth user, getting paid and he's really 26 years old.
 
Well, the listening session Trump scheduled is going pretty much like I figured.
 
332nd said:
Well, the listening session Trump scheduled is going pretty much like I figured.
Click to expand...
No more than a photo-op for Trump to feign concern and imagine himself a miracle worker until the gun supporters in his circle pull his reins back around.
 
Belz... said:
Because I'm not making the claim and I don't know much about the USA's legal history, so I'm asking. Since you made the claim I assumed you knew more than me. It wasn't snarky.

Ok thanks.
Click to expand...
It's probably best not to get your fake news from The Great Z. Here is a list pertaining to 2nd amendment cases I found with minimal searching. I'd be willing to bet the farm it isn't all-inclusive. I don't have access to a legal database like LexisNexis or I'd provide more cases.

The Great Zaganza said:
Why don't you check yourself?
In the entire 20th century there has been exactly one time (United States v. Miller 1939) where the Supreme Court dealt with a 2nd Amendment issue: it was about sawed-off shotguns, which by the court's ruling were not protected by the 2nd Amendment since they have no conceivable use in a militia.
That was the last gun case before the Supreme Court until Columbia vs. Heller.
Click to expand...
The claim that short-barreled shotguns had/have no use in the militia is erroneous considering this source.

The statement that 'nobody cared' about firearms is awful presumptuous.
 
smartcooky said:
If the US Government really decided to breach the constitution and take on the little pretend army of half-witted gun-nuts running around in the Amercan wilderness playing soldier, the Militias would not stand a chance. Air Power is everything. You have a bunch of play soldiers armed with shotguns, hunting rifles and semi-automatics against an overwhelming force of ground attack aircraft such as the A-10 Warthog (5 x USAF squadrons deployed in Georgia, Nevada and Arizona, 4 x ANG Squadrons deployed in Maryland, Idaho, Michigan and Indiana), a total of over 200 of them, then you have F15 Strike Eagles, F/A 18 Hornets, F-35 Lightnings, various G/A Helicopters such as the Apache and the Cobra. It would be all over in a week. Some well-placed GBU43's would take out the biggest compounds, and the ground attack aircraft and drones would mop up the rest.
Click to expand...
And that exact thing was said before the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. But holding a country against local militias/terrorists/insurgents, whatever you want to call them, isn't so easy even if you have all the high tech weapons and they just have the low tech stuff.
 
Apparently during his "listening session" Trump actually carried a cheat-sheet reminding him to express interest in what the kids say.
 
Seismosaurus said:
And that exact thing was said before the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. But holding a country against local militias/terrorists/insurgents, whatever you want to call them, isn't so easy even if you have all the high tech weapons and they just have the low tech stuff.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting some very important aspects of war... numbers, logistical support and enemy armaments

In Afghanistan and Iraq, you are only sending a small part of your force to deal with the enemy, the supply lines are long, going all the way back to the USA, and the enemy is well armed with hand held anti-tank and anti aircraft weapons.

In the homeland, you face no such problems. You have the whole of your air force army, navy and marine force available. You have supply lines that run to the nearest base, ground attack aircraft can operate out of their own home bases. Your "enemy" is armed with, at best, pop-guns and water pistols by comparison. It would be all over very quickly.
 
“**** you, I like guns.”

(The board is likely going to censor one of the words in the above link. If you're interested in reading the entire article, replace the censored word with the 4-letter curse word beginning with 'F'.)

I can’t drive a Formula One car to work. It would be really cool to be able to do that, and I could probably cut my commute time by a lot. Hey, I’m a good driver, a responsible Formula One owner. You shouldn’t be scared to be on the freeway next to me as I zip around you at 140 MPH, leaving your Mazda in a cloud of dust! Why are you scared? Cars don’t kill people. People kill people. Doesn’t this sound like ********? It is ********, and everybody knows. Not one person I know would argue non-ironically that Formula One cars on the freeway are a good idea. Yet, these same people will say it’s totally ok to own the firearm equivalent because, in the words of comedian Jim Jeffries, “**** you, I like guns”.

Yes, yes, I hear you now. We have a second amendment to the constitution, which must be held sacrosanct over all other amendments. Dude. No. The constitution was made to be a malleable document. It’s intentionally vague. We can enact gun control without infringing on the right to bear arms. You can have your deer rifle. You can have your shotgun that you love to shoot clay pigeons with. You can have your target pistol. Get a license. Get a training course. Recertify at a predetermined interval. You do not need a military grade rifle. You don’t. There’s no excuse.​
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Yes you can still keep a Lee Enfield at home. One of my friends still has one. It's a 'sporterised' gun, re stocked with a hunting stock. They are popular because ammunition is relatively cheap and they have a ten round magazine.

You can keep any rifle you have certificate for at home.
Here you are a 22lr semi auto, it even looks like the dreaded AR-15

https://www.daileisure.co.uk/smith-wesson-performance-center-mandp-15-22-sport
Click to expand...


OK, well ... looking at that advert, the page does not even mention that you need any certificate(?) for what looks like some Mad-Max war weapon ... what do you have to show on an application form to legally own and keep loaded examples of that gun in UK homes?

If you really can keep something like that with ammunition in any home all across the UK with a relatively easily obtained license, then (a) I am very surprised indeed, and (b) you should be stopped from doing anything remotely like that immediately (because you would obviously be a lethal & instant danger to everyone around you).
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
“**** you, I like guns.”

(The board is likely going to censor one of the words in the above link. If you're interested in reading the entire article, replace the censored word with the 4-letter curse word beginning with 'F'.)

I can’t drive a Formula One car to work. It would be really cool to be able to do that, and I could probably cut my commute time by a lot. Hey, I’m a good driver, a responsible Formula One owner. You shouldn’t be scared to be on the freeway next to me as I zip around you at 140 MPH, leaving your Mazda in a cloud of dust! Why are you scared? Cars don’t kill people. People kill people. Doesn’t this sound like ********? It is ********, and everybody knows. Not one person I know would argue non-ironically that Formula One cars on the freeway are a good idea. Yet, these same people will say it’s totally ok to own the firearm equivalent because, in the words of comedian Jim Jeffries, “**** you, I like guns”.

Yes, yes, I hear you now. We have a second amendment to the constitution, which must be held sacrosanct over all other amendments. Dude. No. The constitution was made to be a malleable document. It’s intentionally vague. We can enact gun control without infringing on the right to bear arms. You can have your deer rifle. You can have your shotgun that you love to shoot clay pigeons with. You can have your target pistol. Get a license. Get a training course. Recertify at a predetermined interval. You do not need a military grade rifle. You don’t. There’s no excuse.​
Click to expand...

And of course the comment section largely degenerated into a debate about whether the car comparison was a valid one, vs. the sentiments in the rest of the post...
 
Captain_Swoop said:
They do actually. If you go on a Shoot you are only allowed to usually take away a brace of birds, all the others go for sale to Game Dealers.
Click to expand...


OK, fair enough. Though what you are describing is not what I was actually thinking of when I said M&S (the spell check here won't accept the W supermarket!), or any responsible UK food shop, do not rely on private individuals to supply them with rabbits or game birds or venison etc.

What you are describing (correct me if I am wrong) is some sort of licensed game suppliers (maybe even some members of the landed titled aristocracy and the like) who invite a sizeable number of licensed friends, associates or acquaintances to a specific organised game-shoot on their private estate ... and where the owner of the estate or whoever he licenses, keeps the majority of "the kill" and sells it to UK supermarkets or probably more often to local butchers ... is that what you are describing? ...

... because that would not be much different to any livestock farmer who supplies any other types or meat, would it?

What I was talking about was ordinary private individuals who occasionally (or regularly) go out at the weekend for a Saturday mornings shooting on local farmland ... maybe they manage to hit half a dozen various birds ... but UK supermarkets are not relying on that for their supply of game meat, are they?
 
Last edited:
ServiceSoon said:
It's probably best not to get your fake news from The Great Z. Here is a list pertaining to 2nd amendment cases I found with minimal searching. I'd be willing to bet the farm it isn't all-inclusive
Click to expand...

:D Hah, that is really funny. You claim TGZ was wrong... and then promptly post a link that shows he is right.. there were no firearms cases involving 2A between 1939 and 2008

Let me give you a quick word of advice so that in future, you can avoid making a fool of yourself. READ LINKS before you post them so that you know they support your claim rather than refute it.
 
IanS said:
OK, well ... looking at that advert, the page does not even mention that you need any certificate(?) for what looks like some Mad-Max war weapon ... what do you have to show on an application form to legally own and keep loaded examples of that gun in UK homes?

If you really can keep something like that with ammunition in any home all across the UK with a relatively easily obtained license, then (a) I am very surprised indeed, and (b) you should be stopped from doing anything remotely like that immediately (because you would obviously be a lethal & instant danger to everyone around you).
Click to expand...

You indeed show little knowledge about the topic. All developed countries I know of allow hunting rifles .. with registration, license, training, and so on .. but in the end you are allowed to have the gun, and the ammunition, at home. Even in Japan, probably most strict developed country.

The differences start with guns for self defense. That is not considered reason enough in many EU countries. That mostly applies to handguns (above .22 caliber). But for example, in Czech Republic, such license is typically issued, and it also cover concealed carry. Several friends of mine hold such license, though I don't know anyone, how would carry. There is indeed no reason for that around here.

There is also another type of license - when carrying a gun is part of your job. Many non-government companies use armed guards, and in many countries there is special license for that. Don't have much overview about this though. I believe there is such license in Germany, not sure about rest of EU or UK.

And then ther's the US .. :D
 
Dinesh D'Souza is still being a vile human being.

These are your allies, conservatives. Think about that.
 

Attachments

  • dinesh2-640x451.jpg
    dinesh2-640x451.jpg
    26.1 KB · Views: 14
Cl1mh4224rd said:
“**** you, I like guns.”

(The board is likely going to censor one of the words in the above link. If you're interested in reading the entire article, replace the censored word with the 4-letter curse word beginning with 'F'.)

I can’t drive a Formula One car to work. It would be really cool to be able to do that, and I could probably cut my commute time by a lot. Hey, I’m a good driver, a responsible Formula One owner. You shouldn’t be scared to be on the freeway next to me as I zip around you at 140 MPH, leaving your Mazda in a cloud of dust! Why are you scared? Cars don’t kill people. People kill people. Doesn’t this sound like ********? It is ********, and everybody knows. Not one person I know would argue non-ironically that Formula One cars on the freeway are a good idea. Yet, these same people will say it’s totally ok to own the firearm equivalent because, in the words of comedian Jim Jeffries, “**** you, I like guns”.​
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I actually have seen that argument proffered, though for high-performance sports cars rather than Formula One cars. These people actually contend that they should be permitted to drive 120+ mph whenever they deem it safe to do so because they are such skilled drivers.

Believe me, there is no limit to how much arrogant people would be willing to endanger the public given a chance to do so without fear of legal consequences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom