On 2/23/2018 4:40 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/23/18 2:42 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/23/2018 2:11 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/23/2018 8:01 AM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 22:59:44 -0500,
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:14:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/22/2018 1:21 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 11:33:58 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 2/22/18 11:24 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 08:57:24 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 2/21/18 9:51 PM, wrote:

Everyone still seems to avoid the fact that this is a kid
problem, not
a gun problem. When I was in K-12 lots of kids had easy
access to
guns. We were hunting at 14 and this was within a mile of
the DC line,
not wyoming. Nobody shot anyone. It was not even in our
wildest scope
of thought.


It is a societal problem, exacerbated by the easy
availability of most
high-powered firearms. Even in Maryland, there is no state
background
check for a long gun, or even a waiting period. You just have
to be 21.
And, of course, a long gun sale from one private owner to
another in
this state doesn't require any state paperwork.

Tell you a secret. I got rid of my "high-powered" rifles, the
Colt and
the Ruger, because they bored me. Basically, my target
shooting is
limited to 100 yards unless I want to take a 2-1/2 hour drive
out to the
Shenandoah. I don't need superfast, superloud .223 rounds and
their
expense and noise to hit easily hit dead .targets at 100
yards or less.
A .22LR, a 9 mm, or a .357 MAG will do that job nicely.

That is simply rationalizing. Plenty of mass shootings have
happened
with 9mms, usually pistols but your assault rifle would do
just fine.
The "military style" thing is really a red herring. Your CZ is
certainly "military style" and they will sell you a tactical
style
stock for just about anything. You can certainly make a very
"military" looking weapon out of a Mini14 or even a 10-22.


What part is "rationalizing"? The AR-15 is the school shoot up
weapon of
choice. Any idiot can buy a long gun privately in many parts of
this
country without any background check or waiting period. I
didn't mention
"military style." You did.


Richard is stuck on the military thing, along with most of the
left.


Yes, I am sure some moron can shoot up a school with a CZ
Scorpion, but
a $900 9mm rifle is not a weapon of choice for that sort of "fun."

If that is what they had, that is what they would use. The
Columbine
boys used a similar Hi Point carbine.


I am not stuck on the "military thing".Â* The military should have
the
most lethal weapons available.

I am stuck on military type AR-15s available for civilian purchase
because they have a record of being the weapons of choice for
these mass
shootings more often than not.Â*Â* I don't know why they hold such a
fascination for nut cases who want to go kill a bunch of people
but they
do.Â* Maybe it's because they are cheap, heavily marketed and
available
as you have pointed out.


===

I think the high capacity magazines have a lot to do with it, along
with relatively small size, high power and reliability.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

I'd have no problem with outlawing them also. Again, I don't think it
would be effective, but it
would be 'perceived' as taking action.



More than a ineffective perception, it might be the start of an
awareness that not all guns are suitable or designed for civilian
recreational use.Â* It could be the beginning of a more rational
attitude
about firearms without risking 2nd Amendment "rights".Â* I know this
offends many here but I can't think of a legitimate use of a AK-15
style
rifle by recreational shooters other than they are "COOL" to have and
the government, in the interest of the rest of the population, can't do
a damn thing about having one ... or two... or three.






The 2nd amendment was not for hunting.


Oh yeah.Â* It was for a well regulated militia.Â* If you think that
refers to national defense, I guess we can save a lot of money and do
away with
the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard.

If you interpret that as being a state's right to protect against an
army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government as most
2nd Amendment orientalists (and gun nuts) believe to mean, it really
doesn't matter. If the US Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast
Guard were ever taken over by a tyrannical national government and
turned against the states and the "well regulated militia"Â* I don't
think the fight would last long.




What part of "well-regulated" applies to today's rabble of NRA nutsies
who are not in the armed forces, national guard or police or similar
governmental entities? Even if one accepts the concept of "militia"
loosely, that is, just a body of citizenry, there is no real regulation
of that militia. Even the kids in the Red Dawn movie "regulated"
themselves by training together.


"Regulated" did not have the same meaning then as we understand it to
mean today. That's the root of the controversy.