Parkland, FL High School Shooting

[husker98]

12 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Because we limit(ed) our capability in those engagements. The US is entirely capable of killing every man, woman and child in Vietnam & Afghanistan, but chose not to in an effort to limit damage. 

 

A foreign adversary attacking the world's preeminent power isn't going to engage us in a limited capacity.  They are going to use the most destructive weapons in their arsenal to defeat the our military, at which point those left (Guard, Reserves, LEOs) are, as ZRod so eloquently put it, "f'd." 

 

The Romans didn't limit their capacity when the invaded germania. They lost at the teutoberg forest all the same.

 

Nazi Germany held nothing back when they invaded the Soviet union. 20 million dead Soviets later the a red flag was hoisted atop the Reichstag.

 

The Soviets invade Afghanistan and send a formidable modern army to lock down the country. 80,000 dead later they leave.

 

Invasions are defeated all the time in history if the population possesses the will and resources to resist. 

 

 

 

Edited February 15, 2018 by husker98

[NM11046]

How many of you live in Red States?

 

How many of you know who your congressmen are?

 

How many of you know your congressperson’s thoughts/policies on guns?

 

How many of you know how much (or little) money your representative accepts from the NRA?

 

How many of you have contacted your congressmen about gun control in the past?

 

How many have reached out to your congressperson or have gone to their office today?

 

I’m sick and tired of everyone chirping after a mass casualty event like this but not doing a thing about it.  Step up.  

[Enhance]

[Branno]

17 minutes ago, husker98 said:

 

The Romans didn't limit their capacity when the invaded germania. They lost at the teutoberg forest all the same.

 

Nazi Germany held nothing back when they invaded the Soviet union. 20 million dead Soviets later the a red flag was hoisted atop the Reichstag.

 

The Soviets invade Afghanistan and send a formidable modern army to lock down the country. 80,000 dead later they leave.

 

Invasions are defeated all the time in history if the population possesses the will and resources to resist. 

 

 

 

5

 

The American Revolution...

 

Sure the original point of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that civilians had access to military grade weapons, US v Miller, but we've strayed so far from that we might as well get rid of it. 

 

Want a fully automatic weapon, those are banned.

Explosives? Banned

Don't even think about looking into nuclear weapons.

 

 

If the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure people could throw off their own oppressive government or to help fight against a foreign invader, that's out the window. I don't think discussing militias is worth the electrons.

 

We can't have real gun control under the 2nd Amendment, and no one is willing to attack the larger social issues we have regarding violence. So we either need to keep going through these cycles where we bemoan guns after every shooting or finally do something other than just complain about guns.

 

1. Figure out how to fix our violent culture.
2. Repeal/amend the 2nd Amendment to allow for larger gun control measures.
3. And ultimately, provide more security around these types of targets. One armed security guard seems like not enough. 

 

[ZRod]

30 minutes ago, husker98 said:

 

The Romans didn't limit their capacity when the invaded germania. They lost at the teutoberg forest all the same.

 

Nazi Germany held nothing back when they invaded the Soviet union. 20 million dead Soviets later the a red flag was hoisted atop the Reichstag.

 

The Soviets invade Afghanistan and send a formidable modern army to lock down the country. 80,000 dead later they leave.

 

Invasions are defeated all the time in history if the population possesses the will and resources to resist. 

 

 

 

Who is going to invade the US? Who is stupid enough and even remotely capabale enough to take on the world strongest military in history on their own turf, with a budget larger than the next 7 countries combined, with a nuclear arsenal, with support from NATO? Who???? And if they even did get to our shores by getting through modern armour, subs, drones, depleted uranium shells, stinger missiles, etc. What is an AR and some kerosene going to do against that kind of capability?

[Huskerzoo]

1 hour ago, Kiyoat Husker said:

 

Exactly.  I wonder if there is any support from Americans for laws that prevent the mentally ill from purchasing guns?....  Let's check a recent poll....

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/

 

ONLY

89% of non-gun-owners

89% of gun-owners

90% of Democrats

88% of Republicans

 

would support that legislation, so it's fine that the NRA lobbies against it.  I mean, it's such a PARTISAN and CONTROVERSIAL proposal.

 

SMDH

 

FFS, I tried to get ahead of this, but lets have the discussion.

 

How many of you know what a "mental illness" is? How many of you have any notion of the statistics surrounding violent crime associated with specific diagnoses? What about the "severely mentally ill" do you know what goes into that?

 

Do you really want to rely on 18 year olds to say someone else has "mental issues" because I can promise you even a good chunk of my master's students have no clue. 

 

Let's do a quick knowledge check before we advocate for something because I'd wager really good money that this isn't going to work out well for the side of the general consensus. 

[GSG]

1 minute ago, ZRod said:

Who is going to invade the US? Who is stupid enough and even remotely capabale enough to take on the world strongest military in history on their own turf, with a budget larger than the next 7 countries combined, with a nuclear arsenal, with support from NATO? Who???? And if they even did get to our shores by getting through modern armour, subs, drones, depleted uranium shells, stinger missiles, etc. What is an AR and some kerosene going to do against that kind of capability?

 

Most likely it will be used to kill their neighbors and take their food/water/etc and go into hiding

[BigRedBuster]

We have one hell of a lot of people in this country that go to church and believe it's a conservative Christian's duty to stand up for their gun rights and they will die before someone comes and gets their guns because they believe they will need them to defend against a tyrannical government.  We saw this in the last few years when some of these people came to the aid of a Nevada rancher they thought this tyrannical government was harming.  You can find videos of these groups training in the back woods of America with military equipment to be prepared in the event that this tyrannical government needs to be over thrown.

 

Meanwhile, we have a few football player that take a knee during the national anthem with no weapon in hand to harm anyone to protest police actions in inner city neighborhoods and the previous described group is outraged that these few men don't respect our government enough.

 

And, we wonder why our kids grow up screwed up.

Edited February 15, 2018 by BigRedBuster

[ColoradoHusk]

13 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

We have one hell of a lot of people in this country that go to church and believe it's a conservative Christian's duty to stand up for their gun rights and they will die before someone comes and gets their guns because they believe they will need them to defend against a tyrannical government.  We saw this in the last few years when some of these people came to the aid of a Nevada rancher they thought this tyrannical government was harming.  You can find videos of these groups training in the back woods of America with military equipment to be prepared in the event that this tyrannical government needs to be over thrown.

 

Meanwhile, we have a few football player that take a knee during the national anthem with no weapon in hand to harm anyone to protest police actions in inner city neighborhoods and the previous described group is outraged that these few men don't respect our government enough.

 

And, we wonder why our kids grow up screwed up.

[husker98]

17 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Who is going to invade the US? Who is stupid enough and even remotely capabale enough to take on the world strongest military in history on their own turf, with a budget larger than the next 7 countries combined, with a nuclear arsenal, with support from NATO? Who???? And if they even did get to our shores by getting through modern armour, subs, drones, depleted uranium shells, stinger missiles, etc. What is an AR and some kerosene going to do against that kind of capability?

 

A lot of people said the same thing about the Roman Empire and it military too.

 

Yet they still suffered defeat and lost everything.

 

Britain falls into this category as well in the revolutionary war. They also lost to tribal Africans armed with spears in south Africa in the 1800s.

 

 

I would agree with you. Who would invade us? A country so large and powerful.

China and Russia both would tell you a several stories of those who have tried.

You never know who until it happens.

 

I'm just pointing out history and it's pattern to repeat it's self. And how we seem on pace to repeat those mistakes again.

 

We ban guns because a couple hundred people die over these past few years we open the door for possibly many many times that to die in an invasion like the Romans and so many other countries did by banning their peoples right to defense.

 

 

People must consider everything, every possibility before jumping to conclusions. Answers to tough issues are rarely so easy and expense free. There is always a price to pay.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, husker98 said:

We ban guns because a couple hundred people die over these past few years we open the door for possibly many many times that to die in an invasion like the Romans and so many other countries did by banning their peoples right to defense.

Let's be clear here.  A very very very few people who are on the fringe are claiming we need to ban guns.

 

That is one hell of a long ways away from putting in place gun legislation that limits access to guns by people with mental instabilities.

 

We could take guns away from 25% of people who own them because they really shouldn't (exaggerated percentage to make a point) and we would still have enough guns in the public hands to defeat anyone who you think we need to defeat with our current situation.

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, husker98 said:

We ban guns because a couple hundred people die over these past few years we open the door for possibly many many times that to die in an invasion like the Romans and so many other countries did by banning their peoples right to defense.

 

 

So you're seriously saying that America, with the world's most powerful military, alone among the rest of the first-world nations, actually needs its citizens to be armed with small weapons just in case a foreign adversary defeats our military and ends up on American soil.

 

This is simply not realistic.

 

[Fru]

 

"Sorry kiddos, can't do anything about these mass shootings because the Romans got invaded." 

[BigRedBuster]

8 minutes ago, husker98 said:

People must consider everything, every possibility before jumping to conclusions. Answers to tough issues are rarely so easy and expense free. There is always a price to pay.

 

There definitely is a price to pay.

 

 Do you support Trump's actions removing restrictions on people like this kid from legally buying a gun?

[ColoradoHusk]

Spare me the history lesson, but what exactly is the NEED for an average American citizen to have an AR-15 military grade weapon?  I understand that over 99% of those who own those weapons are proper gun owners, but why do they even NEED a gun like that?