Assault weapons

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by BigElCat

The Romans crucified Christ, because they wanted to retain law and order in Jerusalem, but they did not have enough boots on the grounds to fight the Jews until 70 years later.

They did not even want to do it because Jesus had not broken any of their laws, only the Jewish law of blaspheme against a God they did not believe in.

The "white supremist christian nationalists" have not been been in power and control of the US economy for over 100 years, the Zionist have this control, and they will retain this control even over the Democrats.

We just have be thankful for these boon years. And they have been good. Now it's time to pay up what we owe, and die homeless without proper medical care or food. Or join the military in it's crusade against Communists and the enemies of the Nation State Israel.

I'll be back to addres the "blood libel bullshit". It's not what Ike thinks it is. Gotta go to work, and be a good slave.

You will need to back that statement up.
From what I know, US corporations via Wall Street control US economy under the watchful eyes of the Federal Reserve System & Federal Trade Commission.

Yes, Jewish Americans have founded some prominent American companies; Google, FB, Oracle come to mind.

[Mark B]

Originally Posted by GChief

All of this ^^^

This issue is like a 2500 piece puzzle. Banning semi-automatic weapons is 10 pieces of the puzzle, why did someone feel the need to pull the trigger is 2000 pieces and the root cause, the other 490 are the other laws and "restrictions" (licensing, training etc) that need to be put in place.

Claiming that this is a complex puzzle where assault weapons are only a tiny part of the puzzle is deflection from the core cause of the issue which is the availability of assault weapons for sale.

A national ban on the sale of assault weapons will start a rapid decline of assault weapons ending up in the hands of individuals that decide to commit mass murder.

[GChief]

Originally Posted by Mark B

Claiming that this is a complex puzzle where assault weapons are only a tiny part of the puzzle is deflection from the core cause of the issue which is the availability of assault weapons for sale.

A national ban on the sale of assault weapons will start a rapid decline of assault weapons ending up in the hands of individuals that decide to commit mass murder.

The core case is someone making the decision to kill people.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by GChief

The core case is someone making the decision to kill people.

Actually, it represents only 1 of the 3 criteria (motive) that a suspect must fulfill to be convicted of a crime (means, motive and opportunity).

[GChief]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Actually, it represents only 1 of the 3 criteria (motive) that a suspect must fulfill to be convicted of a crime (means, motive and opportunity).

Correct, but the root cause is still the fact that a person made the decision that this was the way forward for them. They decided to buy, borrow, steal a weapon, they made the decision to aim that weapon at people and they made the decision to pull the trigger with the intent of killing those people. And most of these are planned not a heat of the moment passionate response. While I am all for more control it is disingenuous to not recognize that an individuals decision to kill is not a root cause therefore this is big mental health issue. The argument should be how do we identify these people early and report then, without violating HIPaa. This combined with common sense controls MAY make a difference.

Also in a forum like this everyone is pretty much entrenched in their position and here to voice and defend it. We can have discussions like this one but no minds will be changed.

Until we "fix" the mental health side of this reasonable gun regulations will do little.

Lots-o-pieces to this issue.

[GChief]

Which one should we ban? There is a clue in there also.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by GChief

Correct, but the root cause is still the fact that a person made the decision that this was the way forward for them. They decided to buy, borrow, steal a weapon, they made the decision to aim that weapon at people and they made the decision to pull the trigger with the intent of killing those people. And most of these are planned not a heat of the moment passionate response. While I am all for more control it is disingenuous to not recognize that an individuals decision to kill is not a root cause therefore this is big mental health issue. The argument should be how do we identify these people early and report then, without violating HIPaa. This combined with common sense controls MAY make a difference.

Also in a forum like this everyone is pretty much entrenched in their position and here to voice and defend it. We can have discussions like this one but no minds will be changed.

Until we "fix" the mental health side of this reasonable gun regulations will do little.

Lots-o-pieces to this issue.

The resistance to "red flag" regulation for irresponsible, irrational, or hostile behavior involving deadly instruments is a major obstacle for the literal "infringement" folks.
The alternative to the communally sensible implementation is the repeal of the second amendment to "disarm" that defense of the indefensible, and I do not see that happening anytime soon (if ever), even with popular support.
I'm in the position of seeing both Chiefs and Ikes viewpoints as valid positions on this issue.

[Oerets]

With just the information at hand. The rifle modified with a hi capacity magazine and collapsible stock.

[GChief]

Originally Posted by Oerets

With just the information at hand. The rifle modified with a hi capacity magazine and collapsible stock.

Its the same weapon with the same capabilities no mods needed, just swap the stock. The non-scary version will take the same mag.

[finnbow]

Republicans ban books, drag & gender affirming care, black history, "woke” math, the words “gay” and “menstruation”, access to abortion care, state-to-state travel, pronouns and FDA approved medication while claiming that banning assault rifles would be an attack on their freedom.