they won’t assimilate anywhere and take their hate everywhere
(no message)
Link: https://x.com/osint613/status/2000167034811027556?s=46
Replies to: they won’t assimilate anywhere and take their hate everywhere
Another holiday, another attack.
I literally can't remember the last time I got together with family to celebrate a holiday where Jews somewhere in the world weren't attacked and killed.
Chag sameach.
Thanks for saying that. My childhood friends mom said that in front of me when I was 5? She was my
Gateway to curiosity.
She taught me that her son, my friend , don’t go to the same church… otherwise we were the same.
Hero amidst it all. He's ordinary.
(no message)
Link: https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2000142553815847148
His failure to shoot the terrorist came back to bite him
Apparently he would up getting shot twice while the terrorist rearmed and continued his attack.
He'd be charged with a hate crime in NYC.
(no message)
And convicted on 34 counts.
(no message)
Yep
(no message)
I wonder how they got those weapons. Australia has very strict gun laws.
(no message)
Presumably that's why the hero who took the gun had no idea what to do with it.
(no message)
BTW, the hero's name is Ahmed al Ahmed...and he ended up suffering bullet wounds to his shoulder and
hand...here's hoping he recovers fully...
.
(no message)
His mindset doesn’t lead him to kill unarmed people…
Besides, from the video it appears the police were getting engaged and using his head left the rifle by the tree so as not to become a target for “Friendly Fire”.
Don't let Perfection get in the way of Progress...Australia's Mass Killings are 12X the U.S.'s...
...we need an Assault Weapons Ban...ASAP.
Have you given any thought to what weapons you would ban, and how you would do it?
Would you just ban future sales of new rifles, or would you try to collect guns already owned?
How do you define "assault weapon?" It's not a thing in the gun world.
-- There are "assault rifles" which are automatic rifles ("machine guns") like the M-16, but those are so regulated they are effectively banned and never used in crimes.
-- Then there are rifles that are not assault rifles, like semi-automatic rifles, bolt-action rifles, lever action rifles, and so on. Which of those are "assault weapons" which should be banned, in your opinion? All semi-automatic rifles of any caliber which are commonly used for hunting?
Barring an ability to ban "assault weapons" (since they don't exist), would you ban by caliber (e.g., anything larger than .22LR)?
Or, would you ban by trade name like the last ban attempted to do, so that when the Colt AR-15 was banned, the Colt company just renamed their rifle the Colt Sporter? Playing whackamole on constantly changing trademarks seems an ineffective way to do it (even though I know you guys like to think that you successfully banned the AR-15 before).
Or, would you ban by cosmetic features, in which case the gun manufacturers just change the look and feel of their rifles just enough to get around the law? This too was tried before, and it just became another game of whackamole that the government lost.
What about pistols? Would you ban any of them?
Would you ban any shotguns?
I just hear you say we need a ban every now and then, but I get the impression that you have given very little thought to what you are actually saying. For example, what would you do if people don't want to sell them to the government (most would not). Would you let them keep them?
I think I recall you saying that you just want to ban what they banned in the 90's (some examples of which I gave above...just new sales of some trademarks and cosmetic features). If that is all you want to do, and you are fine with letting people retain the guns they have, then just say so.
If you don't want to answer my questions, we don't have to discuss. I can understand if you don't want to discuss this.
Start with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban...then add in "Buy Backs" and penalties for being caught
violating newly enacted laws against ownership of such weapons.
12 to 1 reduction in mass shootings not good enough for you? Is Perfection your only measure for justifying action by our government?...or is your addiction to blowing up watermelons with AR-15's just too much to sacrifice?...Really now...WHY do you cling to such totally non-productive items with only negative (i.e. Lethal) social value? You're intelligent enough to know that making such weapons available to the general public means that stochastically, mentally unbalanced people will get their hands on them...and use them to act out their murderous fantasies...with no possible way for law enforcement to predict who they are and stop them. That's the reality...so if you care at all about saving citizens...and little kids...lives, you can go to a shooting range that has any 'Assault Rifle', or even 20mm cannon, you'd like and blow up as many watermelons as you'd like.
This country has Zero NEED for such weapons...there's NO Downside to "depriving" anyone of such ownership.
Licensed bolt action hunting rifles would still be available...and as for "Home Defense" guns, they are a prime source of suicides...and stolen weapons...MUCH MORE than 'Thwarted Invasions'...I've got data to. prove it.
btw, If it's latent insecurity that drives you to covet guns, there's help available for that...and it's confidential.
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
For a mint-condition 1994 Colt Sporter HBAR, will the government pay market? Something like $2500?
Some rifles (the Ferraris of rifles) are over $10,000. What if the owners don't sell their rifles "back" to the government (which never owned them)? What kind of penalty would you impose?
-- No penalty, because this is 100% voluntary?
-- Misdemeanor, like a traffic ticket?
-- Felony with jail time?
What if, say, only 1% of rifle owners sell their rifles. What is the next step? Any proposals?
Will you try to find out who owns the guns you want? If so, how?
----
I've noted before that "buy backs" are great for gun owners.
-- Police department announces it will pay $300 per gun, so gun owners dig out old non-working guns worth $5 to sell them for $300, and the police buy them up, no questions asked. Typical Democrat government program...wasteful and totally doesn't achieve the objective, so more legislation will be needed, so keep motivating your base!!
-- Also, gun owners set up tables on the sidewalks outside the police station, and offer to value the guns people bring. Some people bring guns worth much more than $300, so those private gun buyers offer to buy them for more than $300, with cash.
In the end, usable guns are not removed, but shooters get some great deals (and sellers get better deals than they would from the police). There is video of this happening; google it if you want. Granted, that wouldn't happen in NYC, but it would happen in, say, Houston. Totally worthless. How would you fix that problem with buy "backs?"
Why do you cling to weapons that cause great harm, yet serve no societal benefit?
...as for buy backs, there's a wealth of knowledge to be gained from recent experiences in Australia and Canada. We can also learn a great deal about managing the sale and distribution of all guns from the many democracies around the globe that have strong restrictions in place.
It isn't that hard...and if history is any guide...it will save thousands of lives each year. You can't possibly be against that outcome...can you? If you agree on the goal, we can let others work out the details...and adjust as needs arise in pursuit of the shared goal.
OK. So you don't know how to go about this. Let me know when you learn how you want to do it.
In the meantime, I don't know why you ask us to do something even you don't understand. Seems like this just a "do something...anything!" plea from the Democrats to motivate their base, and not an attempt to actually solve the problem.
We've actually banned assault weapons before, as I've shown you with the Wiki link...plus we have
all the expertise we need to classify such weapons...e.g. this quotation from retired Maj. General Eaton...
A former Fort Benning commander took a stand in the country’s ongoing debate on gun control with a thread of tweets posted Thursday evening. “Let me state unequivocally — For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war,” retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton wrote on Twitter.
Read more at: https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/politics-government/article262125247.html#storylink=cpy
Add to that the successes that other democracies have had with such bans. and buy backs..like Australia and Canada
You're just pouting like a child who's having a toy taken away...only this one kills thousands of people each year. You make horrific choices.
I'm curious if you think this weapon should be banned? It was explicitly exempted from the 1994 ban.
(no message)
"Buy backs" don't work in the US like elsewhere, ∴ I figured you might want to do it differently.
Notably, things are different here in our US constitutional republic, which has rights that cannot be touched by Congress.
Other democracies don't have rights which are untouchable by their parliaments. The Australian parliament can ban gun ownership, and compensate owners for the "takings" exercised by parliament...or not...they could just ban them, and go house to house seizing weapons if parliament passes a law to that effect.
Not so in the United States, absent an Article V Amendment. If you are actually advocating for an Article V Amendment repealing the Second Amendment, then say so, and we can move on, because we both know that will never happen in the United States. Otherwise, I was curious how you might implement your policy with the Second Amendment still in place. I personally don't think it is workable, and you haven't tried to convince me it is workable, so I guess I wonder why you keep bringing up a fantasy of yours as if it is workable policy.
And, be fair: I haven't "pouted" once in this thread. Nor have I argued that I should get to cling to my arms. I have just been asking you questions about the policy you want to implement, and you seem to be worried because you can't answer those questions, so you lash out at me personally.
You offer no suggestions as to how the U.S. can get anywhere near the gun death rate of Australia,
or any other major democracy...only road blocks...are you simply satisfied with the Status Quo? What joy of gun ownership out weighs the Sandy Hooks and Uvaldes?
btw, fmr Chief Justice, Berger favored an Article V motion by Congress...perhaps some day we'll get that, but in the meantime, Congress can re-institute another Assault Weapons Ban...with better legislation...in perpetuity.
By "ban assault weapons," you mean only ban new sales of some semi-automatic rifles.
During the 1994 ban to which you refer, Congress banned the sale of new semi-automatic weapons (one trigger pull, one bullet fired) under certain trademarks (like AR-15™) and with certain cosmetic features (like bayonet lugs, and pistol grips on imported rifles).
We didn't actually ban ownership of assault weapons. There was no confiscation. People were allowed to retain the weapons they already had, and they were allowed to buy new weapons. Is that the position you are advocating?...Let everyone own what they have, and let them buy new ones that just look different (e.g., no bayonet lugs) and are marketed under new trademarks (e.g., AR-15™ brand rifles are prohibited, but identical/similar Sporter™ brand rifles are permitted)? If so, then I know you aren't serious about gun banning. You are just trying to give talking points to low information voters and motivate your party base.
By the way, be careful arguing about the potential military use of the weapons you want to ban. SCOTUS has indicated that military style rifles are exactly the types of arms which are meant to be protected under the Second Amendment. You would do better arguing that they have only sporting use.
I love it. He's asking you very detailed, important questions and you are completely flummoxed
Ty, just admit you don't know enough about the subject to offer thoughtful comments. Just like I ran circles around you about HCQ+ because you never knew enough about that subject, either.
When a retired Major General who commanded the Fort Benning Training Base calls for a Ban on
Assault Weapons...I don't need to respond to Straw Man arguments.
We've done this before...let's do it again...Lord knows we have an order of magnitude more firearm deaths than any other major democracy on earth.
We can indeed do much better...why don't you want to see that happen?
Link: https://www.upworthy.com/military-general-explains-ar15-weapon-of-war-rp8
Consent Management