Elementary School Shooting in Uvalde Texas

Della said:
Every time something like this happens the NRA starts talking about better back ground checks even when it's clear that better background checks would not have kept this boy or most of these mass killers from getting their guns. Felons steal their guns. Teens make their own guns from kits or get a friend to buy their guns for them.

Background checks are just the NRA's favorite distraction to keep us from talking about the real reason this keeps happening.

It's the guns! Take the guns away and it can't happen.
Click to expand...

Well then we had better take away cars as well. Until [I believe] just last year, cars killed more people in this country than anything.
 

Della said:
Every time something like this happens the NRA starts talking about better back ground checks even when it's clear that better background checks would not have kept this boy or most of these mass killers from getting their guns. Felons steal their guns. Teens make their own guns from kits or get a friend to buy their guns for them.

Background checks are just the NRA's favorite distraction to keep us from talking about the real reason this keeps happening.

It's the guns! Take the guns away and it can't happen.
Click to expand...

How do you propose to take away an estimated 350,000,000 guns, already owned ?

IMO, even an attempt, would lead to a blood bath.
 
Last edited:
rgp said:
How do you propose to take away an estimated 350,000,000 guns, already owned ?

IMO, even an attempt, would lead to a blood bath.
Click to expand...
Well, when they decided to do it in Australia they managed to peacefully confiscate 650,000 guns.

That's not as many as we have, but we do have lots of law enforcement in every state.

We could get quite a few by buying them back from the owners. There's nothing like the way to get some quick money to make people ready to part with something else. One day it's, "Not from my cold dead hands," and the next it's, "I could have that car!"

Other guns would trickle in as police made it part of arrests and of course if no one is selling them no one can legally buy new ones.

it would take time and we wouldn't get rid of them all, but if we had that in place our most recent mass shootings probably wouldn't have happened.

I don't know why something that so many Americans are in favor of should result in a blood bath.

We're only talking about guns. Unlike cars or drugs, no one needs guns for transportation to work or because of some disease. The one and only purpose for guns is to kill things. If someone can't part with their killing machine then that might be a good sign police should take it by force.
 

At least eight mass shootings took place across the U.S. over the weekend following Tuesday's mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas. Another three occurred between Wednesday and Friday.
Eight people have been killed and another 45 injured in the five days following the Uvalde massacre.
 
Della said:
Well, when they decided to do it in Australia they managed to peacefully confiscate 650,000 guns.

That's not as many as we have, but we do have lots of law enforcement in every state.

We could get quite a few by buying them back from the owners. There's nothing like the way to get some quick money to make people ready to part with something else. One day it's, "Not from my cold dead hands," and the next it's, "I could have that car!"

Other guns would trickle in as police made it part of arrests and of course if no one is selling them no one can legally buy new ones.

it would take time and we wouldn't get rid of them all, but if we had that in place our most recent mass shootings probably wouldn't have happened.

I don't know why something that so many Americans are in favor of should result in a blood bath.

We're only talking about guns. Unlike cars or drugs, no one needs guns for transportation to work or because of some disease. The one and only purpose for guns is to kill things. If someone can't part with their killing machine then that might be a good sign police should take it by force.
Click to expand...
Della is correct. Guns weren't taken from unwilling Australians. Legislation was introduced that unified the laws and regulation relating to firearms (and other lethal weapons) across all states. Some categories were banned including pump action shotguns and automatic weapons. People who owned them could hand them in and receive compensation (buyback). They were collected and destroyed. For other older weapons there was an amnesty period during which they could be voluntarily surrendered without questions being asked and these too were destroyed. Antique and other collectible items were allowed provided they were rendered unable to be fired.

Almost all weapons were subject to registration and owners needed to demonstrate the reason why they wanted the firearm. Self protection is not a legitimate reason for owning a gun but belonging into a club where target shooting is the activity will be accepted. So is eradication of vermin on rural properties. Some people require them for their job.

There were grumbles but by and large Australians had had enough of mass murders and Port Arthur was the last straw. The laws succeeded because we saw that they were a move in the right direction. People can still own firearms but they must be licensed and all guns must be registered to be legal. Guns must be stored securely and safely. You cannot travel across state borders to take advantage of weaker laws because they are the same everywhere.
 
Sunny said:
You mean the part about a well-regulated militia? Do you understand what those words mean, or is the concept too difficult for you to grasp? And if you do understand what the words mean, would you say they apply to Salvador Ramos?

His mother said, "He had his reasons." I'd like to know what reasons anyone could have had for committing such an atrocity.
Click to expand...

Sunny, try and keep up! You asked the question, " I would really like to know what possible reason there could be for any civilian to own one." I answered that question. In case you were not aware our Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution talks about the right to bear arms. The reason for that is also stated, and I quote..."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Now you know the answer to your question....right?
 
Della said:
Our founding fathers had no concept of automatic weapons. They were picturing muskets, which take far too long to load to be effective in a mass shooting. No doubt our founding fathers were mostly fine, moral men but they were insider politicians, they were not saints or prophets, and they could not see the future.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you know little of the founding Fathers...most were exceptional in knowledge and experience for their time! Even then it took almost 3 years to write the Constitution and all of its parts....Do your own research. Most were not politicians, until after our government was formed, and even then, not all became politicians.

They recognized that one of the biggest risks to any government was an internal take over by those currently in power. The one way, they knew this could be avoided was to allow the general population to have and carry guns.

It has worked for over 200 years...and in today's world, I thank God that our population is well armed.
 
Della said:
Well, when they decided to do it in Australia they managed to peacefully confiscate 650,000 guns.

That's not as many as we have, but we do have lots of law enforcement in every state.

We could get quite a few by buying them back from the owners. There's nothing like the way to get some quick money to make people ready to part with something else. One day it's, "Not from my cold dead hands," and the next it's, "I could have that car!"

Other guns would trickle in as police made it part of arrests and of course if no one is selling them no one can legally buy new ones.

it would take time and we wouldn't get rid of them all, but if we had that in place our most recent mass shootings probably wouldn't have happened.

I don't know why something that so many Americans are in favor of should result in a blood bath.

We're only talking about guns. Unlike cars or drugs, no one needs guns for transportation to work or because of some disease. The one and only purpose for guns is to kill things. If someone can't part with their killing machine then that might be a good sign police should take it by force.
Click to expand...
"I could have that car?" ROFLOL!!! Yeah, maybe from the junk yard.
We had several gun buybacks. They pay $50.00 for a "regular" gun & $100.00 for an "Assault Rifle." What car would that buy?
 
Della said:
Well, when they decided to do it in Australia they managed to peacefully confiscate 650,000 guns.

That's not as many as we have, but we do have lots of law enforcement in every state.

We could get quite a few by buying them back from the owners. There's nothing like the way to get some quick money to make people ready to part with something else. One day it's, "Not from my cold dead hands," and the next it's, "I could have that car!"

Other guns would trickle in as police made it part of arrests and of course if no one is selling them no one can legally buy new ones.

it would take time and we wouldn't get rid of them all, but if we had that in place our most recent mass shootings probably wouldn't have happened.

I don't know why something that so many Americans are in favor of should result in a blood bath.

We're only talking about guns. Unlike cars or drugs, no one needs guns for transportation to work or because of some disease. The one and only purpose for guns is to kill things. If someone can't part with their killing machine then that might be a good sign police should take it by force.
Click to expand...


"

"I don't know why something that so many Americans are in favor of should result in a blood bath."

Because the other [so many are against it]


"If someone can't part with their killing machine then that might be a good sign police should take it by force.

And that is exactly where the blood-bath would begin.

Remember "stop & frisk" ? that was deemed unconstitutional ..... and that was aimed toward suspected criminals.

Most gun owners that I have known over the years, woud never "sell" their guns back. Most can easily afford them, and will not part with them.

A car is a convience .... there if we need it ..... just like a gun. If we can "do" without one ? we can "do" without the other.
 
So, Timewise, according to you, "the right to bear arms" means the right to own and use, for any reason or no reason at all, any weapons of mass destruction? Against innocent people, including children? Just because someone is angry, or just for the hell of it? And to live in constant fear that someone is about to break into our home, so we carry a gun around all the time, just in case? Is that really what you think the founding fathers meant?

And, uh, Timewise, most of us on this forum made it through 5th grade history. We are aware that there are unfortunately times when armed revolution against tyrants is the only course. And we are also aware that weaponry has changed (just a bit?) from 18th century muskets to assault weapons and nuclear war. If our minds aren't mired in quicksand, we recognize that our laws sometimes have to change to keep up with the times.

At one time, women were hanged for witchcraft. Throughout the South, lynch mobs operated with impunity. All over the country, people could be arrested for practicing homosexuality. TV shows had to use "clean" language, and they couldn't even show a married couple sleeping in a double bed. And so on. Lots of laws have gone the way of ancient history, because life is better for the general population without them. All except anything relating to the sacred right to be armed.

Maybe if we put aside the gun worship for a moment and look at this a different way, some sanity might creep in. Let's say there is a deadly poison, so powerful that just a few drops could kill thousands of people. Some individual decides that getting some of that poison is just another way of "bearing arms." So he manages to get some of it, puts a few drops in the city's water supply just for fun, and sits back to see what would happen. He has a history of criminal behavior and/or mental illness; yet, he was able to legitimately buy that stuff just because he had a right to bear arms, and the poison was his weapon of choice.

OK with you? Even if someone in your family, very dear to you, drank some of that water?
 
Timewise 60+ said:
Perhaps you know little of the founding Fathers...most were exceptional in knowledge and experience for their time! Even then it took almost 3 years to write the Constitution and all of its parts....Do your own research. Most were not politicians, until after our government was formed, and even then, not all became politicians.

They recognized that one of the biggest risks to any government was an internal take over by those currently in power. The one way, they knew this could be avoided was to allow the general population to have and carry guns.

It has worked for over 200 years...and in today's world, I thank God that our population is well armed.
Click to expand...
"For their time," being the most important part.
Ask the people in Buffalo and Uvalde how well they think it's working.

win231 said:
"I could have that car?" ROFLOL!!! Yeah, maybe from the junk yard.
We had several gun buybacks. They pay $50.00 for a "regular" gun & $100.00 for an "Assault Rifle." What car would that buy?
Click to expand...
LOL Okay, perhaps I'm a bit out of touch car-wise. My 1998 Neon might go for $200. It looks a lot like the one Pepper posted.
 
Warrigal said:
Della is correct. Guns weren't taken from unwilling Australians. Legislation was introduced that unified the laws and regulation relating to firearms (and other lethal weapons) across all states. Some categories were banned including pump action shotguns and automatic weapons. People who owned them could hand them in and receive compensation (buyback). They were collected and destroyed. For other older weapons there was an amnesty period during which they could be voluntarily surrendered without questions being asked and these too were destroyed. Antique and other collectible items were allowed provided they were rendered unable to be fired.

Almost all weapons were subject to registration and owners needed to demonstrate the reason why they wanted the firearm. Self protection is not a legitimate reason for owning a gun but belonging into a club where target shooting is the activity will be accepted. So is eradication of vermin on rural properties. Some people require them for their job.

There were grumbles but by and large Australians had had enough of mass murders and Port Arthur was the last straw. The laws succeeded because we saw that they were a move in the right direction. People can still own firearms but they must be licensed and all guns must be registered to be legal. Guns must be stored securely and safely. You cannot travel across state borders to take advantage of weaker laws because they are the same everywhere.
Click to expand...
Probably after some die-hard gun owners passed on, some of their heirs have turned those weapons in.
 
I never had a gun, and I couldn't have cared less about them. Until a brother of a girl I knew showed up at my house. He is an idiot, a complete jackass. And everybody, who knew him, knew he was a jackass. He whipped out a gun. Two things went through my mind. One-he was going to kill me. Not in anger, but because he was a frikken jackass, and he was going to do something stupid, Two- who in the hell was that stupid to sell that jackass a gun? About a week later, the jackass was in a crowded bar, and decided to light his cigarette by shooting the tip off. So how do I know you are a "responsible" gun owner and will never in any future incident misuse your weapon? I can't. So since I can't get rid of you, I want to get rid of the gun. The vast majority of gun deaths are the shooter himself, or someone known by the shooter.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
I never had a gun, and I couldn't have cared less about them. Until a brother of a girl I knew showed up at my house. He is an idiot, a complete jackass. And everybody, who knew him, knew he was a jackass. He whipped out a gun. Two things went through my mind. One-he was going to kill me. Not in anger, but because he was a frikken jackass, and he was going to do something stupid, Two- who in the hell was that stupid to sell that jackass a gun? About a week later, the jackass was in a crowded bar, and decided to light his cigarette by shooting the tip off. So how do I know you are a "responsible" gun owner and will never in any future incident misuse your weapon? I can't. So since I can't get rid of you, I want to get rid of the gun. The vast majority of gun deaths are the shooter himself, or someone known by the shooter.
Click to expand...
The stupid acts of some morons does not justify penalizing everyone.
I won't get rid of my car because Ted Kennedy drove drunk & killed his teen-age mistress passenger. His car has killed more people than my gun.
And I won't get a vasectomy because my neighbor has too many kids.
 
Della said:
"For their time," being the most important part.
Ask the people in Buffalo and Uvalde how well they think it's working.


LOL Okay, perhaps I'm a bit out of touch car-wise. My 1998 Neon might go for $200. It looks a lot like the one Pepper posted.
Click to expand...
You have a Dodge Neon? Hope you have a good mechanic in your family. And please accept my deepest sympathies. ;)
 
If we're going back to the original intentions of our Founding Fathers, the wording of the 2nd Amendment was no accident.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The 2nd Amendment was a collective right of states. It says it right there in the first and second phrases: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

That gave states — not individuals — the right to keep and bear arms. Our Founders were against a standing national military, but they supported state militias so that if our country was attacked, states militias could quickly band together and defend our country.

The 2nd Amendment has only been interpreted in the past 20 or so years as an individual right, but that interpretation doesn't make any sense if you look at the actual wording.
 
StarSong said:
So he would have timed his slaughter of innocents for recess time or immediately following school dismissal. It doesn't take a genius to know dozens of children are milling around a school.

What about the grocery store shooting in Buffalo, or the nightclub shooting in Orlando, or the movie theater shooting in Aurora, or the outdoor shooting in Las Vegas. We can't secure everyone behind breach proof doors every time they leave their homes.
Click to expand...
Teachers should teach behind locked doors. When kids are out on the playground at recess time, that’s a different issue than the situation we are dealing with. Unless we are willing to build machine gun nests like prison yards have, kids will be vulnerable on the playground, but they would have the opportunity to scatter and some would be able to get far enough away to be safe, however, that wouldn’t resolve the problem.

It all goes back to taking the guns out of the hands of the crazies, but I just don’t know how we do that. Do you?
 
oldman said:
Teachers should teach behind locked doors. When kids are out on the playground at recess time, that’s a different issue than the situation we are dealing with. Unless we are willing to build machine gun nests like prison yards have, kids will be vulnerable on the playground, but they would have the opportunity to scatter and some would be able to get far enough away to be safe, however, that wouldn’t resolve the problem.

It all goes back to taking the guns out of the hands of the crazies, but I just don’t know how we do that. Do you?
Click to expand...
After a shooting at a temple/elementary school, some synagogues installed solid metal covers over the chain-link fence so kids would not be visible on the playground during recess. That, plus locked entrance doors, plus armed security would keep kids much safer.
But most schools won't spend the money.
 
Sunny said:
You mean the part about a well-regulated militia? Do you understand what those words mean, or is the concept too difficult for you to grasp? And if you do understand what the words mean, would you say they apply to Salvador Ramos?

His mother said, "He had his reasons." I'd like to know what reasons anyone could have had for committing such an atrocity.
Click to expand...
I think that remark of his mother's says a great deal about how he has been brought up. A spoiled brat who can't deal with the word 'no'.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top