26 shot in 32 seconds: New details, videos released in Dayton mass shooting

[party-free]

@zantax

How about padlocking an apartment building doors at two AM and setting it on fire instead?

How about just walking into a busy shopping area with a a few high capacity mags or drums and shooting at everything that moves?

@zantax

Or driving through a crowded street festival.

You meant the type that typically has police roadblocks and protection?

My former hometown’s 3 day BBQ festival has the entire downtown area blocked off with barricades and cops. It would be a lot easier to just hide a gun on one’s person and use it to do the job.

[PurpnGold]

@zantax

Yes, because a right to an ineffective self defense is meaningless. Why should a law abiding citizen be put at a disadvantage to his attackers? Criminals aren’t going to abide by gun bans. Should we limit police to revolvers? If no, why not? Are their lives more valuable than my loved ones?

And who are you kidding, what happens if we ban assault rifles and mass shootings keep happening with pistols and other semi-auto weapons? Because they will.

Where in the constitution does it state the type of “arm” you are, or are not, Allowed to have?

[mobulis]

@zantax

@mobulis

@zantax

@westaussie

Perhaps as part of the process to purchase a firearm it should be mandated that the purchaser is required to undergo some educational training that includes a video containing images that doctors, nurses and other health professionals are faced when trying to save those gunshot victims.

Perhaps the people who want to deny people the right to self defense should be mandated to look at examples of populations who were denied that right. I’ll start you off with a few.

Holocaust: Definition, Remembrance & Meaning | HISTORY

Trail of Tears: Definition, Date & Cherokee Nation | HISTORY

Yep our 2nd sure helped those Japanese/Americans didn’t it.

Did we kill them? Nope. Rather large differences between the three. Taking up arms against a government is a pretty risky move that you may not feel is warranted if the alternative is detention versus extermination.

The 2nd is supposed to be a check against govt tyranny, it didn’t work.

[BlueTex]

@zantax

Did we kill them? Nope. Rather large differences between the three. Taking up arms against a government is a pretty risky move that you may not feel is warranted if the alternative is detention versus extermination.

Only when they tried to leave the “camps”…

Japanese Internment Camps: WWII, Life & Conditions

[party-free]

Who in this thread is called for a total disarming of the American people?

[Guvnah]

@Blackwolf

Good question - but acknowledging that fact without deflecting to flamethrowers is an important first step, don’t you think?

Not really.

Acknowledging it is as effective as banning bump stocks.

Pressing the point is just an exercise in wasted pixels.

[Guvnah]

@Blackwolf

no one is saying lack of access to firearms means these idiots will give up on the idea of murder.

But (whether or not you specifically are pressing for it) people are pressing for gun limitations all the same.

To what end? At best it will give someone a political victory. And then … ?

The result is further erosion of constitutional protections, which just opens the door to even more.

The battle to oppose violations of the second amendment is bigger than just “guns”. It’s about government overreach – and in particular overreach that is specifically prohibited in the Constitution.

[westaussie]

I would have thought that the best case scenario is that people are not shot and killed.

[Cynic]

I don’t think there is anything more hilarious than a bunch of people who are OBSESSED with guns arguing how redundant and unimportant they are. I love this thread.

[Blackwolf]

@Guvnah

Acknowledging it is as effective as banning bump stocks.

If that were the case one would think there’d be much less resistance to doing it. Instead you were the first one in a long thread of replies.

[Blackwolf]

@Guvnah

The result is further erosion of constitutional protections, which just opens the door to even more.

The battle to oppose violations of the second amendment is bigger than just “guns”. It’s about government overreach – and in particular overreach that is specifically prohibited in the Constitution.

And I can at least appreciate the argument, because it’s kith and kin to the one employed by the reproductive rights camp.

[WuWei]

@PurpnGold

@zantax

And? What does that have to do with whether it is a good idea to give up your right to self defense?

Who is asking for that to happen? How many different types of guns do you need to defend yourself?

Let’s say the government limited the selling of guns to a single gun type… would your right to self defense be infringed?

Yes, it would.

[WuWei]

@Blackwolf

@Guvnah

Acknowledging it is as effective as banning bump stocks.

If that were the case one would think there’d be much less resistance to doing it. Instead you were the first one in a long thread of replies.

Why would one think that?

[Blackwolf]

@WuWei

Why would one think that?

Why the resistance?

[WuWei]

@Blackwolf

@WuWei

Why would one think that?

Why the resistance?

It’s not a diminished right.

[conan]

Make a deal with you libs.

Lets compromise OK?

You get rid of all those scary guns from the police…and federal agencies first and then we can talk about limiting the people right to those scary guns.

Deal?

[Blackwolf]

@WuWei

It’s not a diminished right.

And?

8675309

[conan]

Maybe American gun owners can have but back program.

We buy back all those firearms from the police and federal agencies.

Would that be acceptable for you libs?

[WuWei]

@Blackwolf

@WuWei

It’s not a diminished right.

And?

8675309

You don’t get to diminish it.

[Blackwolf]

@WuWei

You don’t get to diminish it.

Ok, thank you.