Shooting in Portland

[Yoused]

Don’t say “assault rifles” should be banned. Say “semi-automatic rifles” should be banned. I know from the outside/non-firearm enthusiast that might seem a little pedantic but when it comes to the law and what is actually made illegal the difference is significant.

Have you ever read a statute? Most statutes begin with two or three pages worth of definitions. “... As used in this act, 'foot' means the part of the human body below and adjacent to the ankle, composed of the tarsal, metatarsal, phalange bones and surrounding muscles, tendons and integument ...” Which is to say that a statute can employ whatever language they see fit, as long as it is properly framed with definitions. Contracts are frequently like that as well.

 

[Citizenzen]

The argument/debate is over in my opinion when people choose to ignore the differences in a debate even after the facts have been presented.

Don’t say “assault rifles” should be banned. Say “semi-automatic rifles” should be banned. I know from the outside/non-firearm enthusiast that might seem a little pedantic but when it comes to the law and what is actually made illegal the difference is significant.

Assault rifles should be banned and clips should be restricted to no more than 10 pellets.

 

[Lostngone]

The argument/debate is over in my opinion when people choose to make up excuses to ignore the context and perspective of the matters being debated.

Words have meaning. If you choice to ignore that fact I don’t want to continue. If you want to have a “data driven discussion” and can’t even use the right definitions of items you want to talk about I can not help you.

This isn’t hard people, if you want to talk about banning firearms at least clear on WHAT you want banned.

 

[Citizenzen]

So don't call them "thundersticks"?

 

[Lostngone]

Assault rifles should be banned and clips should be restricted to no more than 10 pellets.

Problem is, some politician is going write that exactly into a bill/law. Then when that law fails to do anything productive we will be right back here demanding more laws.

 

[Yoused]

The law I would like to see is "You are responsible for how your guns get used". The kid in (I saw a guy on youtube pronounce it "KEEnuhshaaw") claims he got the gun from some guy in Wisconsin: that guy needs to be prosecuted for felony mishandling of firearms.

 

[lizkat]

Fortunately, most of it was done through executive order, you know that thing he used to dog Obama for all the time?

Biden will have his work cutout for him with all the damage Trump has already done but he can undo most of the EOs on day one.

Funny, for being such a "deal maker" Trump couldn't get anything passed in congress, not even when he held both houses.

Unfortunately some of those EOs occurred before 2018 and required (and did get) Congressional enabling of specific parts of some of the rollbacks or rule tweaks.

Worse: buried in the language of some of those bills were stipulations that a "similar rule" could not be imposed by an agency in future. So undoing that sort of stuff will take longer than just typing up an EO that reverses a Trump EO.

Fortunately some of the efforts that required Congressional approval didn't get it.

But yeah, it's going to be a full time job for a lot of people to track through everything and see what the damage is and how hard to fix it. Plus there are a few rollbacks that no one really objected to since they turned out to be overreach or overkill in practice. A big mess to sort out, for sure. In EVERY agency.

 

[lizkat]

The argument/debate is over in my opinion when people choose to ignore the differences in a debate even after the facts have been presented.

Don’t say “assault rifles” should be banned. Say “semi-automatic rifles” should be banned. I know from the outside/non-firearm enthusiast that might seem a little pedantic but when it comes to the law and what is actually made illegal the difference is significant.

The difference is significant if and when someone's drafting legislation. But as others suggest here, maybe not so much when attempts to have a discussion among plain citizens end up focused on that and then totally ignore the main context of discussion.

I have yet to see someone say something like "I think you meant blah-blah, not yada-yada, but I understand your concern,,,, so here's why I think we should still be able to buy the blah-blah..."​

​

No, it ends up more often "See it's not a yada-yada it's a blah-blah and this is the trouble with anti-2A idiots, you don't even know what you're talking about."​

It's infuriating (possibly intentionally) in a plain citizens' debate for people to hang other people's posts out to dry on technicalities instead of dealing with the questions about why the F we should have to tolerate weapons "like that", I'm gonna say, when it's pretty clear the only good reason to have one is to be able to kill a bunch of people really fast.... like people do in mortal combat with enemies of the state.

Yeah I know, the next set of posts usually ends up with someone talking about how you can kill a first grader with a piece of clothesline or a knife and a reminder that at Sandy Hook the guy was using a whatchamcallit instead of a yada yada.

Well no kidding. And so what. Help us solve the problem. Hang the language.

 

[hulugu]

The argument/debate is over in my opinion when people choose to ignore the differences in a debate even after the facts have been presented.

Don’t say “assault rifles” should be banned. Say “semi-automatic rifles” should be banned. I know from the outside/non-firearm enthusiast that might seem a little pedantic but when it comes to the law and what is actually made illegal the difference is significant.

I agree that terms should be correct, but I don't think we have to derail every conversation. That's the difference. The right thing to do is simply use the correct terms in response. See also: machine gun.

Anyway, our current law is a rat-king that doesn't work. We probably need to re-consider the availability of semi-automatic rifles, but that will be exceedingly difficult both logistically and politically. And, our largest problem with gun violence is the wide-availability of semi-automatic pistols, including .22 and 9mm.

Good law would not spend much time limiting new arms—though as I said on MR, the whole "other" category is largely nonsense—rather, we need to look at how the federal government can remove weapons from black and gray markets, crack-down on straw-purchasers, and push hard on enforcing current law.

 

[Yoused]

Yeah I know, the next set of posts usually ends up with someone talking about how you can kill a first grader with a piece of clothesline or a knife and a reminder that at Sandy Hook the guy was using a whatchamcallit instead of a yada yada.

Well, you know, Sandy Hook was fiction and all those "bereaved parents" were actors. Ask alexjones. You have to prove that what the "lamestream media" says happened actually happened.

 

[hulugu]

Well, you know, Sandy Hook was fiction and all those "bereaved parents" were actors. Ask alexjones. You have to prove that what the "lamestream media" says happened actually happened.

I will never forgive Alex Jones for saying that the shooting in Tucson was fake.

 

[JayMysteri0]

So I guess the man accused of the shooting will be doing interviews

 

[SuperMatt]

So I guess the man accused of the shooting will be doing interviews

I’m surprised he hasn’t been arrested...

More info released about him:

Man under investigation in fatal shooting after pro-Trump rally in Portland admits he fired shots in interview with Vice News

Michael Reinoehl contends he acted in self-defense. Aaron "Jay" Danielson died of a single gunshot to the chest Saturday night.

www.oregonlive.com

 

[User.45]

Words have meaning. If you choice to ignore that fact I don’t want to continue. If you want to have a “data driven discussion” and can’t even use the right definitions of items you want to talk about I can not help you.

This isn’t hard people, if you want to talk about banning firearms at least clear on WHAT you want banned.

Explain why people need semi-automatic AR-15s. You moved nothing forward, just rambled about the definition of assault rifle. It's clear since the bump stocks that it's not necessarily straight forward... But I guess this is your style. Make 2-sentence statements, then run away when those need to be backed up. You're disappointing.

 

[User.45]

I agree that terms should be correct, but I don't think we have to derail every conversation. That's the difference. The right thing to do is simply use the correct terms in response. See also: machine gun.

Anyway, our current law is a rat-king that doesn't work. We probably need to re-consider the availability of semi-automatic rifles, but that will be exceedingly difficult both logistically and politically. And, our largest problem with gun violence is the wide-availability of semi-automatic pistols, including .22 and 9mm.

Good law would not spend much time limiting new arms—though as I said on MR, the whole "other" category is largely nonsense—rather, we need to look at how the federal government can remove weapons from black and gray markets, crack-down on straw-purchasers, and push hard on enforcing current law.

Nearly 20K guns reported lost/stolen annually. Pretty impressive.

https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/undefined/osii508fflthefts-lossescy16pdf/download

 

[Lostngone]

Make 2-sentence statements, then run away when those need to be backed up. You're disappointing.

I will make one and it should be enough.
It is my Constitution Right.

Don’t like that FACT? Well then do the work/get the support and have the constitution amended and then pass all the anti-gun laws you want.

 

[SuperMatt]

I will make one and it should be enough.
It is my Constitution Right.

Don’t like that FACT? Well then do the work/get the support and have the constitution amended and then pass all the anti-gun laws you want.

I understand we have the right in the Constitution, and I have no problem with your defense of it.

I do think we could pass laws to protect us better though... perhaps insurance, registration, etc. We already prevent felons from having weapons, which it could be argued violates the 2nd amendment... so I think we can make some regulations and still keep the 2nd amendment intact. The ban from 1994 to 2004 kept AR-15s from being sold, am I correct? I guess that ban could be passed again, but there are so many AR-15s out there now, that I wonder what difference it would make.

 

[User.45]

I will make one and it should be enough.
It is my Constitution Right.

Don’t like that FACT? Well then do the work/get the support and have the constitution amended and then pass all the anti-gun laws you want.

Ok. It was very nice conversing with you.

Anyone else. Can you guys explain why an AR-15 is needed? I wonder if 2A would allow me to have arm launched remote controlled weaponized drone if it took individual trigger pulls to make the drone discharge a single bullet?

 

[Lostngone]

Ok. It was very nice conversing with you.

Oh, so you don’t like my answer? Look who is moving on now. How disappointing...

 

[Renzatic]

Anyone else. Can you guys explain why an AR-15 is needed?

If I remember correctly, Lostngone lives in Alaska, where you have to fight off polar bears and wendigos just to go to the grocery store.

Honestly, we should be asking ourselves whether an AR-15 is enough for him.