Active shooter now 20 plus injured in Florida school

[Been Jammin]

If I apply and get the right background checks, I believe I can own and operate a grenade launcher. Same with fully automatic, even a tank, minigun, and others. It is just more difficult since you have to have a more extensive background check. However, I bet most of the mass shootings that have happend could have passed those checks.

Again, you can't remove someone's rights with out due process. Period. Anything you suggest that violates that principle is a non-starter.

Looked it up (grenade launcher)

It is in fact completely legal for a private citizen to own a fully functioning grenade launcher. Gun laws regarding these weapons are pretty quirky – a 37mm launcher, which is often used for flares, is regulated differently than a 40mm launcher like the big boys use. To get one of the latter, you need a permit from the ATF, which requires a ton of background checking. Owning grenades to shoot from it is a little trickier – because they’re classified as destructive devices, you need to find a chief law enforcement officer in your area who is willing to sign off on you owning one, then pay a $200 tax per grenade, which is a little steep for just one boom. The 37mm isn’t classified as a weapon, but there isn’t explosive ordinance that works with it.
Read more at http://www.craveonline.com/mandator...apons-you-can-legally-own#dgMfAgax0GQm91gZ.99

So, when I read that, it is pretty easy to understand why no one is using grenade launchers to perpetrate these mass casualty events. Can you tell me if changing the law to put semi-automatic weapons in the same category would "remove someone's rights with out due process"? If your answer is "yes", please explain.

 

[EvilPOKES]

My mom was killed by a drunk driver. Do we need to outlaw liquor? Do we need to sell alcohol in tiny bottles? Ration it by day? Make it insanely expensive? Get rid of shot glasses? Limit the proof of alcohol? No, I did not go on a rampage. We could get rid of it and we go back to bootleggers. Drunks will drink. Sadly, being drunk and driving is a poor decision, one that does not assume the driver intends to take a life or intended by the driver. They intend to go home, it is a poor lazy decision that is selfish and negligent.

Here, we have a young adult that intentionally takes lives and plans it in advance. How does this happen today and why? This did not happen with regularity in the 50's or 60's, etc...Something has changed.

You could have put loaded guns in the schools I was raised in, in every class room and no one would have been shot. We did not raise killers in my day.

All the talk is guns, but what about that young kid? Where is the concern for him and how do we understand what drove him to do that? We need to understand the psychology behind it and fix the what makes kids WANT TO KILL, that kid is sick.

Society and our culture is creating monsters, not a single parent today will blame their kid or hold their kid accountable for anything. God forbid if as parents we have to ask ourselves HOW DID WE FAIL THIS CHILD?

We do not answer this question because we know the reality. Gun control is a band aid, do it because I do not care, but it will not save many lives.

We want to do something to clear our conscious while pop culture, video games, MSM, movies, etc....devalues lives and individuals all around us and we stop teaching kids morals, and getting them involved in a church and learning love and forgiveness. We do not want to admit we are a horrible country today in raising healthy young adults ready to join the adult world, kids living in basements of their parents until they are 30, and needing safe rooms, kids no longer know how to cope with anything.

All around us hate and victimization is sold, not caring and problem solving.

My mom died because life happens, I forgave god and the person that did it. Unless the whole country wants to solve drunk driving, I am smart enough to know I am whistling in the wind.

Gun control is whistling in the wind but go for it, when we decide to properly raise our children again and not reward so called artists for providing filth to our kids with millions that devalues life and individuals, this will continue. You can live with the sick pop culture we have today, IF the parents, schools, and churches counter balances the garbage and keeps our young adults grounded and learning morals. Most adults today are horrible parents and role models, they think they are victims as well and do not hold themselves accountable.

The kids we are raising is a reflection of us, some do not want to look at the mirror because they will not like what they see.

Sorry for your loss and good on you to learn forgiveness.

I am nitpicking here, but my brothers and I were not raised in a church-ly, god fearing/loving household and not one of us has ever felt the need to kill someone else. To say "getting them involved in a church" is an antiquated argument and some of the most obtuse and judgemental people tend to be heavily involved in church.

Also, millions of kids are influenced by pop culture, video games, MSM, movies, etc...but not millions of them are committing crimes like these. Continuing to blame those things is shortsighted and overused. I think it is a mental health issue and better getting these people the help they need is paramount.

 

[Ostatedchi]

In Florida it is perfectly legal for an 18 year old to buy an AR 15 without a background check.

Don't say nothing can be done. Don't tell me closing that loophole would infringe on our rights as 'Mericans. It is not true.

Please be specific about which loophole is being exploited and what you would propose to fix it.

 

[Ostatedchi]

So it’s primary purpose is to shoot. To inflict harm on something.

Someone could make the choice to kill me with a spoon potentially but that’s not it’s primary purpose.

Someone could make the choice to hit me with a car but it’s not the car’s primary purpose.

You can shoot hogs and deer with single shot rifles. No need for semi automatic or large magazines.

It isn't about NEED. It is about the Constitution.

 

[Been Jammin]

Sorry for your loss and good on you to learn forgiveness.

I am nitpicking here, but my brothers and I were not raised in a church-ly, god fearing/loving household and not one of us has ever felt the need to kill someone else. To say "getting them involved in a church" is an antiquated argument and some of the most obtuse and judgemental people tend to be heavily involved in church.

Also, millions of kids are influenced by pop culture, video games, MSM, movies, etc...but not millions of them are committing crimes like these. Continuing to blame those things is shortsighted and overused. I think it is a mental health issue and better getting these people the help they need is paramount.

Totally agree with all of your points. However, on the bolded sentence, even if we focus on that idea, and sink billions of dollars into that goal, there will always be individuals who slip through the cracks. It is not unrealistic for a mentally ill individual to hide his illness from everyone else. Often, they are very intelligent and calculating. Better mental health will help, but I don't like when the NRA claims that the only answer to find and treat those that have mental health issues. That is a BS answer, IMO.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Looked it up (grenade launcher)

It is in fact completely legal for a private citizen to own a fully functioning grenade launcher. Gun laws regarding these weapons are pretty quirky – a 37mm launcher, which is often used for flares, is regulated differently than a 40mm launcher like the big boys use. To get one of the latter, you need a permit from the ATF, which requires a ton of background checking. Owning grenades to shoot from it is a little trickier – because they’re classified as destructive devices, you need to find a chief law enforcement officer in your area who is willing to sign off on you owning one, then pay a $200 tax per grenade, which is a little steep for just one boom. The 37mm isn’t classified as a weapon, but there isn’t explosive ordinance that works with it.
Read more at http://www.craveonline.com/mandator...apons-you-can-legally-own#dgMfAgax0GQm91gZ.99

So, when I read that, it is pretty easy to understand why no one is using grenade launchers to perpetrate these mass casualty events. Can you tell me if changing the law to put semi-automatic weapons in the same category would "remove someone's rights with out due process"? If your answer is "yes", please explain.

Yes it would 'remove someone's rights without due process'. Because the Constitution says 'the right to bear arms shall not be infringed'. Arms are defined as what a typical foot soldier would carry into battle. A typical modern foot soldier would carry that into battle. The language didn't say 'ordinance'; which would be mortars and such. It just said 'arms'.

DC vs. Heller case said that right is an individual right as opposed to a collective right.

So, does a typical soldier carry it? Then I have an individual right to own it as an American citizen. I'm okay with laws that protect that right,but not infringe on it.

 

[Been Jammin]

It isn't about NEED. It is about the Constitution.

Which part of the Constitution stated that citizens should have easy access to semi-automatic weapons and that gun companies should be able to produce huge numbers of them and saturate the market?

 

[EvilPOKES]

Totally agree with all of your points. However, on the bolded sentence, even if we focus on that idea, and sink billions of dollars into that goal, there will always be individuals who slip through the cracks. It is not unrealistic for a mentally ill individual to hide his illness from everyone else. Often, they are very intelligent and calculating. Better mental health will help, but I don't like when the NRA claims that the only answer to find and treat those that have mental health issues. That is a BS answer, IMO.

That exception will apply to ANY rule, law, idea, etc. Banning guns will not solve it, will it help, maybe. Getting better help in diagnosing mental health issues will not solve it, will it help, maybe. Raising the price of guns and ammo won't solve the issue, will it help, maybe. Finding an end-all-be-all for something like this is damn near impossible.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Which part of the Constitution stated that citizens should have easy access to semi-automatic weapons and that gun companies should be able to produce huge numbers of them and saturate the market?

See my earlier post.

 

[Air_Thurman]

Please be specific about which loophole is being exploited and what you would propose to fix it.

The loophole that allows 18 year olds to buy AR-15s in a private sell with no background check at all. My proposition to fix that would be to not allow it. You shouldn't be able to buy an AR in this country without a background check. It is ludicrous.

And yes I know stronger back ground checks wouldn't completely wipe out violence in America. However, maybe we would have kids slaughtered just once a year instead of once every couple of months.

 

[Been Jammin]

Yes it would 'remove someone's rights without due process'. Because the Constitution says 'the right to bear arms shall not be infringed'. Arms are defined as what a typical foot soldier would carry into battle. A typical modern foot soldier would carry that into battle. The language didn't say 'ordinance'; which would be mortars and such. It just said 'arms'.

DC vs. Heller case said that right is an individual right as opposed to a collective right.

So, does a typical soldier carry it? Then I have an individual right to own it as an American citizen. I'm okay with laws that protect that right,but not infringe on it.

A typical soldier carries hand grenades, right? Yet, as I posted above, you need to find a chief law enforcement officer in your area who is willing to sign off on you owning one, then pay a $200 tax per grenade.

Would if infringe upon your constitutional rights if owning a semi-automatic weapon had similar requirements and costs?

 

[OKSTATE1]

Sorry for your loss and good on you to learn forgiveness.

I am nitpicking here, but my brothers and I were not raised in a church-ly, god fearing/loving household and not one of us has ever felt the need to kill someone else. To say "getting them involved in a church" is an antiquated argument and some of the most obtuse and judgemental people tend to be heavily involved in church.

Also, millions of kids are influenced by pop culture, video games, MSM, movies, etc...but not millions of them are committing crimes like these. Continuing to blame those things is shortsighted and overused. I think it is a mental health issue and better getting these people the help they need is paramount.

I was not trying to sell one shoe size fits all, it is a combination of all the things I mentioned. I am not trying to sell the church as the answer at all. But between, parents, schools, teachers, coaches, other adults involved in a child's upbringing, and churches, we need to be raising healthy kids ready for adulthood. IMO, all of the areas I just mentioned are failing to do so compared to decades ago in the US. Some kids are lucky to have one "parent" today, be it mom, dad, or grand parent. The family unit is not what it once was. Kids can and should be learning from all kinds of adults that are around them. The best conversations I had about sex was not with my parents (although I did have those conversations) but was with another responsible adult within my circle of life at that time. It was ok back then for another adult to step in and assist with parenting without stepping on toes. When I worked at a Texaco in 7th grade my boss was a great man and he took the time to impart some of his wisdom to me, not much of this happens today. Sometimes it is easier for a young adult to talk to another adult about things then their own parents, what is important is for young adults to get good direction and comfortable they have many sources to rely on. My 7th grade basketball coach took the time in some practices to teach life lessons, does that happen today? We need role models at all levels of their activities. Most parents today think they are the only ones that should parent their child, and they are doing a horrible job and they are around their kids the least, especially if that child is active within the school. Like teachers, some parents are really good at teaching and some are really bad. Kids if given a good supporting cast of adults around them can figure out who they need to go to.

 

[Ostatedchi]

I tell you that if you are willing to apply the same restrictions on the other protected rights as you are on the right to bear arms, then I'll listen.

Background check to register to vote? sure
Mental Healh exam in order to vote, or speak, or march in a parade, or be part of the press? then let's talk.
Age requirement (greater than 18) to to have the right to be searched and seized? great
You have to apply to not have the military quartered in your home? perfect.

Otherwise, those same restrictions you want to put on the 2nd amendment are wrong if you aren't also willing to put them on the other protected rights.

 

[OSUGuy]

It isn't about NEED. It is about the Constitution.

Oh geez

 

[Ostatedchi]

A typical soldier carries hand grenades, right? Yet, as I posted above, you need to find a chief law enforcement officer in your area who is willing to sign off on you owning one, then pay a $200 tax per grenade.

Would if infringe upon your constitutional rights if owning a semi-automatic weapon had similar requirements and costs?

Is that effect of that law a protection of my rights or an infringement on them? I'd contend the latter.

FYI, I've been waiting a year now for the BATFE to process my firearms trust. How about you wait an entire year when you register to vote and see how well you like the 'reasonable' restriction being put on your rights.

 

[Been Jammin]

I tell you that if you are willing to apply the same restrictions on the other protected rights as you are on the right to bear arms, then I'll listen.

Background check to register to vote? sure
Mental Healh exam in order to vote, or speak, or march in a parade, or be part of the press? then let's talk.
Age requirement (greater than 18) to to have the right to be searched and seized? great
You have to apply to not have the military quartered in your home? perfect.

Otherwise, those same restrictions you want to put on the 2nd amendment are wrong if you aren't also willing to put them on the other protected rights.

That's just silly. No one has ever killed 50+ people by casting a vote, or speaking in public, or marching in a parade or being part of the press or quartering the military in their home.

 

[Been Jammin]

Is that effect of that law a protection of my rights or an infringement on them? I'd contend the latter.

FYI, I've been waiting a year now for the BATFE to process my firearms trust. How about you wait an entire year when you register to vote and see how well you like the 'reasonable' restriction being put on your rights.

See my previous post.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Oh geez

Also, the 2nd amendment isn't just about my ability to shoot things. It is there as a collective deterrent of an overreaching government.

 

[Ostatedchi]

That's just silly. No one has ever killed 50+ people by casting a vote, or speaking in public, or marching in a parade or being part of the press or quartering the military in their home.

But they are all protected rights. If you can't see that then we are never going to come to a resolution.

 

[Ostatedchi]

See my previous post.

Tell you what, you move and go register to vote and then wait for a year to get your registration ID so you can in fact go vote. Or apply for a parade permit and wait a year and see if you think those are 'reasonable'.

 

[CoastGuardCowboy]

Maybe we should learn from past U.S. history and restore public hangings for those convicted in court of mass murder. Make sure they get a speedy trial and hang them quickly! This idea would save the tax payers money and deter some people.

 

[Air_Thurman]

 

[Been Jammin]

But they are all protected rights. If you can't see that then we are never going to come to a resolution.

Wait...you actually thought we were going to come to a resolution?

Anyway. As I said. I don't see any reason mass casualty weapons should be on the same plane as the right to vote or host a parade.

Our founding fathers wrote the constitution when weapons could only fire one projectile before having to be reloaded. I'm pretty sure they were not accounting for today's semi-automatic weapons. Your stance on this is selfish and defies logic.

 

[Been Jammin]

Maybe we should learn from past U.S. history and restore public hangings for those convicted in court of mass murder. Make sure they get a speedy trial and hang them quickly! This idea would save the tax payers money and deter some people.

Agree about saving money. Not sure it would deter many. Most of them kill themselves or choose death by cop.

 

[okiemudman54]

So it’s primary purpose is to shoot. To inflict harm on something.

Someone could make the choice to kill me with a spoon potentially but that’s not it’s primary purpose.

Someone could make the choice to hit me with a car but it’s not the car’s primary purpose.

You can shoot hogs and deer with single shot rifles. No need for semi automatic or large magazines.

And as in the Broken Arrow case used by a man to defend his own life against multiple intruders.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Wait...you actually thought we were going to come to a resolution?

Anyway. As I said. I don't see any reason mass casualty weapons should be on the same plane as the right to vote or host a parade.

Our founding fathers wrote the constitution when weapons could only fire one projectile before having to be reloaded. I'm pretty sure they were not accounting for today's semi-automatic weapons. Your stance on this is selfish and defies logic.

Incorrect.

 

[CoastGuardCowboy]

I think it would be with trying. It wouldn' be the only solution, for sure. Arming some teachers would also probably help.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Wait...you actually thought we were going to come to a resolution?

Anyway. As I said. I don't see any reason mass casualty weapons should be on the same plane as the right to vote or host a parade.

Our founding fathers wrote the constitution when weapons could only fire one projectile before having to be reloaded. I'm pretty sure they were not accounting for today's semi-automatic weapons. Your stance on this is selfish and defies logic.

So there is no freedom of speech in digital form? Great to know since that didn't exist when the founders wrote the Constitution.

 

[Been Jammin]

So there is no freedom of speech in digital form? Great to know since that didn't exist when the founders wrote the Constitution.

Once again. Freedom of speech never allowed one individual to murder 50 plus innocent people in just a few minutes.

 

[BIGOSUFAN]

Totally agree with all of your points. However, on the bolded sentence, even if we focus on that idea, and sink billions of dollars into that goal, there will always be individuals who slip through the cracks. It is not unrealistic for a mentally ill individual to hide his illness from everyone else. Often, they are very intelligent and calculating. Better mental health will help, but I don't like when the NRA claims that the only answer to find and treat those that have mental health issues. That is a BS answer, IMO.

The "we need better mental health" excuse is just that, a lame excuse. The vast majority of mass shooters do not have mental health problems.

 

[OSUGuy]

Also, the 2nd amendment isn't just about my ability to shoot things. It is there as a collective deterrent of an overreaching government.

Is it?

“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 debate has been going on since its ratification with people arguing what the actual implication is with the bent towards more rights for citizens. That’s all well and good but just going by the words on the page from an immediate historical context at the time of its writing one could argue it has a lot more to do with guarding against external threats in a time when state militias were the primary means of national defense.

Going anything beyond that is mere speculation and subjective interpretation.

 

[OKSTATE1]

This thread shows why IMO this country will never solve the "gun debate", it will be a circular argument like it always has been.

This is why we need to find the cure, the cure for why our culture and US society produces young killers.

 

[Been Jammin]

This is why we need to find the cure, the cure for why our culture and US society produces young killers.

Those are just empty words. Might as well just pray that it stops. Both ideas have the same degree of likelihood of helping.

 

[OKSTATE1]

Those are just empty words. Might as well just pray that it stops. Both ideas have the same degree of likelihood of helping.

That is your opinion only, not a fact. My opinion was also just that, just an opinion and not a fact. My words no more empty then yours.

It is a very bleak picture.

 

[lovethempokes]

Nothing the government will do will fix this. This is a societal problem. I don’t have answers but the answers I feel do start with education. We teach kids to not bully, and then wonder why our kids can’t deal with confrontation. We teach our kids to respect your peers and then see adults not able to compromise to accomplish things for the well being of society. We leave our kids all day with adults who we hope teach them but then don’t give them the full resources they need. Until we as a society stand up and participate in that society nothing will change.

“Evil triumphs when good men do nothing”- Jefferson. One of the guys that gave us all the rights we enjoy today.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Is it?

“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 debate has been going on since its ratification with people arguing what the actual implication is with the bent towards more rights for citizens. That’s all well and good but just going by the words on the page from an immediate historical context at the time of its writing one could argue it has a lot more to do with guarding against external threats in a time when state militias were the primary means of national defense.

Going anything beyond that is mere speculation and subjective interpretation.

Go read Federalist Papers and see where you are wrong.

If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist. [Federalist 29]

It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. [Federalist 46]

 

[Ostatedchi]

Once again. Freedom of speech never allowed one individual to murder 50 plus innocent people in just a few minutes.

Yeah, I'm sure a free press has never exercised yellow journalism that riled the American spirit and got us in a war resulting in the deaths of thousands.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Those are just empty words. Might as well just pray that it stops. Both ideas have the same degree of likelihood of helping.

But AGAIN... it is a protected right - just like the other protected rights in the Constitution. And is treated as such in law. Just because you can't see the correlation doesn't mean it isn't there. It is. What you propose is unconstitutional.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Your stance on this is selfish and defies logic.

And your stance is unconstitutional.

 

[Been Jammin]

And your stance is unconstitutional.

How is it unconstitutional to treat semi-automatic weapons the same as we treat grenade launchers and hand grenades?