Well that didn't take long.................

Give the teachers guns? Hell Slim, a month ago you didn't even want to give them a pension!!!

Before I answer your question, do you really think all kindergarden teachers should be armed?

Wow. I just heard that feinstein's bill would retroactively ban AR-15s.
Banning possession.
No grandfathering of current owners.

Looks like I'm about to be a felon.

rick,

Outside of the brainwashing second amendment farce, why do you need a weapon like that?

If your answer is to protect yourself from the government, I guess I didnt consider you to be a lackey like that..because you will not find any safety from the government if what the wackos have fed you comes to fruition.

Weapons like those do not protect you, they are poison and are dangerous to have irregardless of any phony fear you have of the government.

If you seriously fear the government to that extent, why would you live here in the first place?

I was talking to a fellow parent this morning at school drop off, while two police cars were hanging around, my friend is from another country where terrorism happens much more often but not in the way we have things happen here..and his comment was asking me why we allow military type weapons to be held by citizens? To him it made no sense that we allow corporations to build and circulate weapons like this, that they do not make anyone safer and that most of the world looks at the USA as a country in social decline, we fear each other and the government and are willing to allow events like this to keep happening over and over and over.

He didnt know the name of the senator who put forward this bill, but his comment was (as an outsider) that it does not nearly go far enough and we should protect schools and government buildings more, that we are more than happy to spend money on ARMING our citizens against each other but arent willing to spend money on protecting our children and citizens...that our thinking is backwards and erroneous.

2nd amendment was made so that if our government ever devolved into tyranny that we would have the ability (and duty) to shake off the bonds.

As our government starts domestic drone programs, takes away our fourth amendment with the patriot act. our fifth amendment with NDAA. This is not the time to take away the second amendment.

When govt spied on you with the patriot act People like you shrugged and said that since it did not affect you there was no problem.
NDAA signed off on torture and indefinite detention of Americans. You probably still don't believe that it is true.
Now that drones are in domestic skies, I have no idea how you justify your complacency. And not only wish for the destruction of our constitution, but applaud as it happens.

For people that believe in the constitution and the 2nd amendment a confiscation is a serious red line.

FEINSTEIN: I can tell you that he is going to have a bill to lead on, because of this first day bill I'm going to introduce in the Senate and the same bill will be introduced in the House – a bill to ban assault weapons. It will ban the sale, transfer, the importation and the possession, not retroactively, but prospectively. And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than ten bullets. So there will be a bill. We've been working on it now for a year.

https://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/sen-feinstein-introduce-assault-weapons-ba

Rick, do you honestly believe that you and thousands of others who own assult weapons would keep the govt from getting rid of whoever they wanted or do whatever the wanted?As far as the 2nd A goes it is outdated. I don't believe that they ever envisioned a weapon that could shoot and kill as fast and faster than they could pull the trigger. The forefathers were smart but not so in todays world. By the way I own aprox 20 firearms and only 1 semi that was a gift.

So it will not be illegal to have possession of an ar-15 in the past, but in the future possession will be illegal.

That is ex post facto, and a given.

rick,

There is no line and that is the problem.

There needs to be a line in which we allow certain weapons to be created, and we have crossed that line long long ago.

You never answered the question..what outside of this wacky tyranny theory do you need a weapon like these?

I promise you if the government goes that far, you wont be saved by having a thousand of those kind of weapons..all you are doing is killing other citizens and lining the pockets of the gun manufacturers.

Those makes of firearms aren't designed for self defense.
They're made for mass slaughter !

When has any citizen actually needed such firepower to protect their personhood or constitutional rights ?

Redundancy here,but I feel like participating.

The past may be argued for a reason for such weaponry;but,do we seriously believe we are doomed for TYRANY in our near future ?

Because then citizens could be out-gunned by their governmental law enforcement agencies?

"Outside of the brainwashing second amendment farce, why do you need a weapon like that?"

Shouldn't the question really be "why should the government be able to tell its citizenry what weaponry it can and can't have"? Why does the burden of proof lie with the individual? As with most individual rights, if the constitutionally guaranteed right is going to be infringed by the government, the burden of establishing a justified reason for the infringement is on the government -- its not the burden on the individual to say why the individual should be allowed to exercise their constitutionally allowed rights.

"Weapons like those do not protect you, they are poison and are dangerous to have irregardless of any phony fear you have of the government."

How can you say that automatic weapons or "assault weapons" do not protect someone? That's a rather bold statement. What if the only weapon I own is an automatic weapon or an assault weapon? Does that not protect me in that situation?

"If you seriously fear the government to that extent, why would you live here in the first place?"

Individual citizens are not required to move when they fear their government. They have the right to stay and protest and petition their government for redress of their grievances. This is a similar position to "well if you dislike (party currently in power), then why don't you just move to a different country?" It's a BS argument IMO

"You never answered the question..what outside of this wacky tyranny theory do you need a weapon like these?"

What, outside of a generalized sense of "protecting the public from mentally ill individuals", does the government need to ban weapons like these?

The burden of establishing a justification for infringing constitutionally guaranteed rights lies with the government, not the individual. It's that way for a reason.

 

Do you think it would make a difference at this day and age if the government is really going after individuals?

Yes, I do.

On a side note, there is a completely different justification for owning such weapons: to prevent invasion by a foreign army and to fight an insurrection should our own government be overthrown by a foreign power.

Highly unlikely? Yes. Possible? Sure, unless you ignore history.

Normalcy bias in full effect.

Fewer guns = less shooters ?
Fewer guns = less shootings ?

Fewer bullets = less victims ? ? ?

So are one of you guys ever going to say where the line is?

I have never ever seen from a gun fanatic someone draw a line as to what death machine is enough, what is too much and where we should stop this craziness.

And no I do not agree with you and rick and others views on how pretty much any weapon falls under the second amendment. For all the flag waving freedom grasping I see, I fail to feel any more free or safe knowing these weapons are out there amongst the citizens of this country.

Most of the rest of the world looks at this country and has no idea why we allow weapons to be sold to every day citizens or even manufactured. We are so focused on fear and tyrannical government that we have lost sight of what we should be focusing on and that is improving safety, not increasing weapons.

If you are really in that much fear of the government than even 1000 weapons wont save you..nor will it protect you or your family.

I find it extremely naive to hide behind fear as a means of rationalizing these weapons.

But hey...keep going, the NRA and gun corporations love you..lining their pockets at the expense of others under the fear of government has worked for centuries and profits corporations..you are playing right into the hands of those you despise.

You don't see the government running out to ban cakes or sugar, which cause far more deaths per year than guns.