I Appreciate Assault Weapons. And I Support a Ban

[mossburger 406]

19 hours ago, WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot said:

Tthe mofo Nikolas Cruz passed a NICS check.  

Dana Loesch addressed this as well. The issue is that states do not have to update their data to NICS in a timely manner by law, or if they do the records are outdated. Somewhere around 7 million prohibited persons could pass a NICS tomorrow if they walked into a gun shop. This is why I support mandatory and timely reporting of criminal and mental health info to NICS. 

[voyager9 3,434]

14 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Maybe he’s looking for the counter argument?

Here is what the opening post would look like if that were the case:

Hey folks, I saw this Op Ed online. I don’t know how I feel about AWB and he seems to have some good points. Certainly it sounds better than the rest of the drivel we have see from either side lately. What are your thoughts?

[Zeke 5,504]

6 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

Is it your suggestion that he was looking for enlightenment? or was he the one trying to do the enlightening?

 

I think most of us know the answer to that.

What do you think?

[voyager9 3,434]

1 minute ago, Zeke said:

What do you think?

[JackDaWack 2,895]

4 minutes ago, Zeke said:

What do you think?

[voyager9 3,434]

37 minutes ago, mossburger said:

This is why I support mandatory and timely reporting of criminal and mental health info to NICS. 

Didnt SCOTUS rule that the state can’t be required?  P-something V. state back when Brady Bill was enacted and NICS still being set up. 

[capt14k 2,052]

Trying to have a debate with AVB or Zeke. That's like asking if one wants to get smacked in the head with a hammer or shovel.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Zeke 5,504]

 Stalker

[voyager9 3,434]

32 minutes ago, capt14k said:

Trying to have a debate with AVB or Zeke. That's like asking if one wants to get smacked in the head with a hammer or shovel.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

Point of order: both are heavy metal objects with handles.  Zeke v AVB is more like a hammer vs marbles. 

[JohnnyB 4,322]

Just now, voyager9 said:

Point of order: both are heavy metal objects with handles.  Zeke v AVB is more like a hammer vs marbles. 

But which one has his marbles?

[1LtCAP 4,262]

21 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

1LtCAP:

Thank you for taking the time to read, consider and offer your comments.  I agree with many but not with all of them.  But at least you made the effort for which I do appreciate.  I think that many here will agree with most of your comments.

AVB-AMG

which do you agree with and why? which do you not agree with and why?

[CAL. .30 M1 2,101]

11 hours ago, carl_g said:

What's wrong with driving your kids to soccer?

It was meant as an insult.to him that he is nothing more than a soccer mom with nothing better to do than complain about guns....

I can tell who where the pants in his home.......

[GRIZ 3,369]

On 2/23/2018 at 5:14 PM, AVB-AMG said:

GunsnFreedom:

Do your really believe that all of us gun owners in the United States have a realistic chance to use those guns to be the "armed citizenry to keep the state, these United States, free from tyranny..."?  Really...???  Not a chance.  If we were to forcefully rebel using our guns, we would be crushed, killed or imprisoned by LEO, National Guard and the Military.  Time for you and anyone else who believes that to come back to reality.

AVB-AMG
 

A primitive army can wreck havoc on a modern Army if they are willing to take the casualities.  The Chinese took over 50% casualties when they first went into Korea.

It also depends on the type of war you're fighting.  If your fighting a guerilla  war you choose the place, time, and target.  Castro had as little as 200 soldiers in his command as late as 1958. Batista had over  35,000 in his army and police.  A string of victories and more joining his cause led him to victory not only over Batista but the other revolutionary groups.

A better example is Yugoslavia during WW2.  The situation was compounded by the fact that many of the partisan factors were also fighting each other as well as the Nazis.  All the anti-Nazi factions had were small arms and what they captured from the Nazis.  The Nazis had armor, artillery, and aircraft.  

It wasn't until about 1943 the Yugoslavia got any real outside help from the Allies.  The Allies had to take some time to figure out who to support.  Tito won.  That's with limited preplanned air support from the Allies and depending on captured Nazi equipment.

Tito's success was due to 2 factors.  One is it embraced an ideology not a ethnicity as other groups did.

Second, he had experienced soldiers to organize and train his partisans.  Tito himself was the youngest sergeant major in the Austro-Hungarian Army in WW1.  He was in his early 20s.

Interesting to note Yugoslavia was the the only country to liberate itself from the Nazis by itself without any outside ground forces.

So can a group of citizens with their ARs, AKs, FNs, and M1As who run out in the street to engage a well equipped army.  No.

Can the same people who are trained and organized do it?  Certainly, if they are committed to their principles and willing to die for them.

There are always those who would never stand up for anything if it would put their life in danger.  Many won't stand up for anything if it might cause then some discomfort.

That is the reality.

[AVB-AMG 530]

TokenEntry:

Thank you for your very reasoned point-by-point response to my original post.  I will admit that your points make good sense.

GRIZ:

Thank you for your history lesson in your last post.  I was not aware of a number of those facts.
Your last couple of questions and your answers make sense and I also agree with your last point which may cover a significant number of Americans today....

AVB-AMG

[JohnnyB 4,322]

Could it be that AVB-AMG may actually learn something from @GRIZ, and perhaps even have his opinion swayed.....albeit just a little?  AVB-AMG, admit for the first time on this forum that someone, Griz, may know more than you and that you may have been wrong about at least one point! This is your chance......Just think of the raise in pay Soros would give you if you were truly accepted here on a pro 2A forum! This is your chance!

[1LtCAP 4,262]

nope

[AVB-AMG 530]

As a baby-boomer, typical to my generation, I want my cake and eat it too….  But alas, when it comes to guns, it just may not be possible to do that.  I want to be able to legally buy and own guns for my self-protection and enjoyment, but do not want those who want to kill innocent people from getting them.  If only it were that easy…..

I may be as guilty as many Americans are of wanting our federal government to do something to address what seems like a regular occurrence of mass shootings by very troubled individuals. 
I applauded Congressman Brian Mast in his effort to start a dialogue by presenting a number of ideas and proposals, which on the surface sound very appealing and agreeable to folks like me.

But with further dialogue and discussion and consideration of his points, as well as specifically hearing from many of you here on NJGF and in this thread, I realize now that common sense along with historical perspective, dictates that it is not possible to ensure that all persons who want to cause harm at a school cannot be stopped from acquiring a semi-automatic firearm. 
Some of them will find a way to get what they want. Criminals certainly do. Bans on AR-15's and other semi-automatic rifles cannot attain 100% prevention and I realize that semi-automatic hand guns can do just as much damage. 

So this may come as a shock to some of you, but I have now accepted a number of points that I realize make more sense on this topic, at least to me, including:

-       It is the person and not the tool that is the problem in these mass shootings.

-      I am the only person who can and will protect myself and my family and I cannot count on the police to do that for me.

-       While the AR-15 has been used in a number of the recent mass shootings, it is not unique.

-       There are other alternative guns that could and can do an equal amount of carnage.

-       Even if all guns were banned, a determined individual would use other means to create devastating violence.

-       Schools need to have multiple, trained, armed LEO’s patrolling inside schools in the numbers appropriate for the size of the school.

-       Expecting teachers to be armed does not make realistic sense since it is not their job.

-       Expecting our current background check system to weed out those who should not be able to purchase guns is unfortunately very unrealistic since these database systems are not up to date and do not effectively communicate on a timely basis with other agencies.

-       Diagnosing mental health problems in people and taking the appropriate action to ensure they will not be a threat to the general public is a much more challenging task than we really knew.

-       None of the multiple precautions that we advocate and enact will be 100% effective or foolproof since we all are human and are fallible and subject to natural emotions, including fear.

The combination of all of these points have convinced me that having our federal government ban the AR-15 rifle would not be an effective solution to the underlying problem and would be pointless.  We know that the original Assault Weapon Ban was ineffective and I have to assume that it is most likely that any newly enacted version would have the same dismal results vs. its intention and therefore not a sensible option.

I know a fair amount, but the more I learn, the more I realize just how much I do not know and need to learn.  (and yes JohnnyB, I do learn from others here on NJGF, including military history from GRIZ).  While I do have strong feelings, beliefs and values regarding many things, when it comes to firearms, I am still evolving my position on this sensitive topic, since I only re-started my connection with firearms in the past several years.  As a gun enthusiast I do believe in the 2^nd Amendment, while my interpretation may not be exactly the same as yours.  That may upset some of you, but maybe you should look at my position as more of a middle ground between your absolute interpretation and those of the anti’s who want the 2^nd Amendment repealed. 

I read and listen to both opposing sides of this ongoing debate and digest their respective arguments and do believe that there is some mutually acceptable middle ground that the majority of us can eventually reach.  I am comfortable with that and am not a zealot and am wary of both extremes.  My position may not be acceptable to either the radical right or left wings politically, but it is my position.  Unlike some here, I am willing to change my mind based on rational, logical and sensible arguments, based on reason, historical facts and honest truth.  I have done that on other topics we have discussed here on NJGF, such as how to deal with North Korea.  I expect that my beliefs on other topics may also continue to evolve since our nation and world are constantly changing and we need to be willing to adapt to that change and not be statically stuck in a retrospective view of how to deal with progress.

I want to thank those of you here who spent the time to state your reasons in detail and in many cases why you disagreed with the points and recommendations made by Congressman Mass, as well as my initial assertion that I found it an agreeable starting point for Congress to consider.  That is what I was hoping to illicit with this post, to start a discussion among all of us and hear other points of view.  As voyger9 said in one of his posts, if that was my intention then I could have better stated that in my original post than how I did, for which I see now in hindsight and apologize for my lack of clarity.  For those of you who just insist on continuing to attack me personally, just know that I am not and will not be deterred by your extreme hostility, intolerance and false accusations.  Maybe this is wishful thinking, but I respectfully ask for you to please attempt to throttle back your knee-jerk negative and snarky comments and I will try to do the same towards you.  Thank you.

AVB-AMG

[JohnnyB 4,322]

Just now, 1LtCAP said:

nope

Is that you Zeke?

[JohnnyB 4,322]

5 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

As a baby-boomer, typical to my generation, I want my cake and eat it too….  But alas, when it comes to guns, it just may not be possible to do that.  I want to be able to legally buy and own guns for my self-protection and enjoyment, but do not want those who want to kill innocent people from getting them.  If only it were that easy…..

I may be as guilty as many Americans are of wanting our federal government to do something to address what seems like a regular occurrence of mass shootings by very troubled individuals. 
I applauded Congressman Brian Mast in his effort to start a dialogue by presenting a number of ideas and proposals, which on the surface sound very appealing and agreeable to folks like me.

But with further dialogue and discussion and consideration of his points, as well as specifically hearing from many of you here on NJGF and in this thread, I realize now that common sense along with historical perspective, dictates that it is not possible to ensure that all persons who want to cause harm at a school cannot be stopped from acquiring a semi-automatic firearm. 
Some of them will find a way to get what they want. Criminals certainly do. Bans on AR-15's and other semi-automatic rifles cannot attain 100% prevention and I realize that semi-automatic hand guns can do just as much damage. 

So this may come as a shock to some of you, but I have now accepted a number of points that I realize make more sense on this topic, at least to me, including:

-       It is the person and not the tool that is the problem in these mass shootings.

-       While the AR-15 has been used in a number of the recent mass shootings, it is not unique.

-       There are other alternative guns that could and can an equal amount of carnage.

-       Even if all guns were banned, a determined individual would use other means to create devastating violence.

-       Schools need to have multiple, trained, armed LEO’s patrolling inside schools in the numbers appropriate for the size of the school.

-       Expecting teachers to be armed does not make realistic sense since it is not their job.

-       Expecting our current background check system to weed out those who should not be able to purchase guns is unfortunately very unrealistic since these database systems are not up to date and do not effectively communicate on a timely basis with other agencies.

-       Diagnosing mental health problems in people and taking the appropriate action to ensure they will not be a threat to the general public is a much more challenging task than we really knew.

-       None of the multiple precautions that we advocate and enact will be 100% effective or foolproof since we all are human and are fallible and subject to natural emotions, including fear.

The combination of all of these points have convinced me that having our federal government ban the AR-15 rifle would not be an effective solution to the underlaying problem and would be pointless.  We know that the original Assault Weapon Ban was ineffective and I have to assume that it is most likely that any newly enacted version would have the same dismal results vs. its intention and therefore not a sensible option.

I know a fair amount, but the more I learn, the more I realize just how much I do not know and need to learn.  (and yes JohnnyB, I do learn from others here on NJGF, including military history from GRIZ).  While I do have strong feelings, beliefs and values regarding many things, when it comes to firearms, I am still evolving my position on this sensitive topic, since I only re-started my connection with firearms in the past several years.  As a gun enthusiast I do believe in the 2^nd Amendment, while my interpretation may not be exactly the same as yours.  That may upset some of you, but maybe you should look at my position as more of a middle ground between your absolute interpretation and those of the anti’s who what the 2^nd Amendment repealed. 

I read and listen to both opposing sides of this ongoing debate and digest their respective arguments and do believe that there is some mutually acceptable middle ground that the majority of us can eventually reach.  I am comfortable with that and am not a zealot and am wary of both extremes.  My position may not be acceptable to either the radical right or left wings politically, but it is my position.  Unlike some here, I am willing to change my mind based on rational, logical and sensible arguments, based on reason, historical facts and honest truth.  I have done that on other topics we have discussed here on NJGF, such as how to deal with North Korea.  I expect that my beliefs on other topics may also continue to evolve since our nation and world is constantly changing and we need to be willing to adapt to that change and not be statically stuck in a retrospective view of how to deal with progress.

I want to thank those of you here who spent the time to state your reasons in detail why you disagreed with the points and recommendations made by Congressman Mass and my initial assertion that I found it an agreeable starting point for Congress to consider.  That is what I was hoping to illicit with this post, to start a discussion amongst all of us and hear other points of view.  As voyger9 said in one of his posts, if that was my intention then I could have better indicated that in my original post than I did, for which I see now in hindsight and apologize for the lack of clarity.  For those of you who just insist on continuing to attack me personally, just know that I am not and will not be deterred by your extreme hostility, intolerance and false accusations.  Maybe this is wishful thinking, but respectfully ask for you to please attempt to throttle back your knee-jerk negative and snarky comments and I will try to do the same towards you.  Thank you.

AVB-AMG

HOLY SHIT!

[AVB-AMG 530]

JohnnyB:

Maybe you should now go pour yourself a beer or mix yourself a cocktail to help you recover from your shock....

AVB-AMG

[JohnnyB 4,322]

@AVB-AMG, Are you for real? Or was it the Soros raise? If the latter, I have a newfound respect for you!

Just now, AVB-AMG said:

JohnnyB:

Maybe you should now go pour yourself a beer or mix yourself a cocktail to help you recover from your shock....

AVB-AMG

I already have...It's a double!

[AVB-AMG 530]

JohnnyB:

Yes, I am for real and am being totally serious....
Per your Soros raise comment, I only wish that I was being paid for my posts here on NJGF and if I was I would insist that it would be calculated on my word count in each post...  

AVB-AMG

[JohnnyB 4,322]

You would be a much more rich man for sure!

[JohnnyB 4,322]

Have I just been snookered? Time for bed!........I need to sleep on this!

[Zeke 5,504]

7 minutes ago, JohnnyB said:

Have I just been snookered? Time for bed!........I need to sleep on this!

Snooker is a tuff game.

[Mr.Stu 1,916]

I have no axe to grind with AVB-AMG or anybody else. I am merely an observer and want to make an observation.

The pro-gun rights side vs the gun prohibition side is constantly being badgered to "compromise" and to "find middle ground".

This cannot be achieved because the gun prohibition side of the argument is dishonest. They claim to be compromising but never give up anything. They just move their goal posts to a lesser ban for the duration of any negotiation - e.g. "just give up 15 round magazines and make the limit 5 but we will compromise at 10". The only compromise they are really making is that they won't demand total disarmament of everybody just yet. It is an incremental approach that needs to stop. The goal is a ban on everything. The "nobody is trying to take your guns" is a lie.

Not one more inch. I'm done. I had all my pistols confiscated in England in 1997 to allow the politicians to say they did something after Dunblane and before the inquiry was completed. They will never admit they did something completely ineffective and they will never admit how much they spent from the public purse compensating law abiding people for stealing their property.

When one side argues from a position of lies, there is no way to negotiate.

[Zeke 5,504]

35 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

I have no axe to grind with AVB-AMG or anybody else. I am merely an observer and want to make an observation.

The pro-gun rights side vs the gun prohibition side is constantly being badgered to "compromise" and to "find middle ground".

This cannot be achieved because the gun prohibition side of the argument is dishonest. They claim to be compromising but never give up anything. They just move their goal posts to a lesser ban for the duration of any negotiation - e.g. "just give up 15 round magazines and make the limit 5 but we will compromise at 10". The only compromise they are really making is that they won't demand total disarmament of everybody just yet. It is an incremental approach that needs to stop. The goal is a ban on everything. The "nobody is trying to take your guns" is a lie.

Not one more inch. I'm done. I had all my pistols confiscated in England in 1997 to allow the politicians to say they did something after Dunblane and before the inquiry was completed. They will never admit they did something completely ineffective and they will never admit how much they spent from the public purse compensating law abiding people for stealing their property.

When one side argues from a position of lies, there is no way to negotiate.

Thank you.. London is now considering a knife ban I understand.

Still boils down to people behaving badly 

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

1 hour ago, AVB-AMG said:

As a baby-boomer, typical to my generation, I want my cake and eat it too….  

So this may come as a shock to some of you, but I have now accepted a number of points that I realize make more sense on this topic, at least to me, including:

-       It is the person and not the tool that is the problem in these mass shootings.

-      I am the only person who can and will protect myself and my family and I cannot count on the police to do that for me.

-       While the AR-15 has been used in a number of the recent mass shootings, it is not unique.

-       There are other alternative guns that could and can an equal amount of carnage.

-       Even if all guns were banned, a determined individual would use other means to create devastating violence.

-       Schools need to have multiple, trained, armed LEO’s patrolling inside schools in the numbers appropriate for the size of the school.

-       Expecting teachers to be armed does not make realistic sense since it is not their job.

-       Expecting our current background check system to weed out those who should not be able to purchase guns is unfortunately very unrealistic since these database systems are not up to date and do not effectively communicate on a timely basis with other agencies.

-       Diagnosing mental health problems in people and taking the appropriate action to ensure they will not be a threat to the general public is a much more challenging task than we really knew.

-       None of the multiple precautions that we advocate and enact will be 100% effective or foolproof since we all are human and are fallible and subject to natural emotions, including fear.

I have a few minor caveats re: the points I highlighted in blue above:

1) I think "armed LEOs vs. armed teachers" is a decision best handled locally. For instance, in some parts of the country where gun ownership is an ingrained way of life... many teachers already carry in their personal life... police departments are hard-pressed to cover large geographic areas... and local citizens are accepting of the idea - it would be perfectly logical to see if teachers wish to volunteer to help protect students. It's already being done in some parts of in the U.S., in Israel, and perhaps other places I don't even know about. Why rule it out?

2) I also like Israel's plan which involves training students to be more proactive as well - more than  just "run, hide and wait to be shot" (which seems to be the prevalent philosophy here). Engaging students to be active in their own self-defense (even if it's rushing the shooter if cornered, throwing objects, using a fire extinguisher, whatever) gives kids an extra chance to fight for their own survival. Why not give them the disciplined techniques to do so?

3) As far as diagnosing mental health problems and intervening... as I've stated on another thread, some of these killers had red flags all over the place! People KNEW they were sick.... but they dropped the ball. We now know in this most recent case, the school passed this kid around like a basketball, the local LEOs visited his house 39 times, the FBI was warned about him TWICE with the 2nd time a very and credible threat, 4 officers who were onsite FAILED to engage the shooter... EVERYONE failed, again and again and again! Tightening up our response to these signs of a potentially violent kid is absolutely critical IMO.... and holding people responsible when they fail! As a side note,  I read one article that said Switzerland, after one of their own school shootings, began to fund an in-school psychologist in every school to help identify potentially violent kids and pull them into treatment. That's another idea worth exploring. I just think "we're doing it again" - we're sweeping the mental health issue under the rug because it's too "challenging" to deal with...? No, I can't accept that.

Other than that, I agree "lock, stock and barrel" with everything you said!

[Golf battery 1,223]

Avb.  Not there yet!!!.  Schools need trained police or officers?   Lotta good that did at parkland.   Schools shouldnt require teachers to ccw.  Hell no they shouldn’t. Its not their job.  It should be their personal  Preference.  Thats why constitutional carry should prevail.  And first thing to do is toss those gun free school signs.  Sitting ducks.  Shoot here.  Mental health checks need to be the number one topic and done thoroughly and follow through.  Damned libitards cant figure that out.  Stop using emotions when making these laws.  Use reality and logic.  If i offended you by calling you a douche or what not. Sorry. Too bad.  This stuff going on is ridiculous and most of us are fed up with the attacks on the 2nd amendment. Its time to stop it already.  So yeah.  I get alittle touchy when i hear this over and over again.  Peace out.  

Added

Also  avb   I dont believe you   Your smart enough to do this analysis of everyones personality that responds to you and research topics and quote cut paste but it takes a bunch of us to call you an ass then you have a partial epiphany??  Im not fooled that easily      What say you  ?!?   Dont try to marionette me   Its not gonna work  

 

 

[capt14k 2,052]

Sheriff Israel is a corrupt politician. The calls to Cruz house now number just 23. Most are a single mother not being able to handle two boys. The last few calls became extreme. Sheriff Israel is best friends with Debbie Wasserman Schultz. He is also ardent anti gun. The four deputies not only did not enter the building initially, but they remained outside when off duty Coral Springs Police were running into the building.


Is it really that far fetched to see a JROTC kid with emotional issues, who strived to be accepted, being patsied by corrupt Anti-Gun government officials. The people he worked with at Dollar General gave a completely different account of Nickolas Cruz. The Sheriff's Office were the ones in control of the 20 min delay cameras. Were the deputies outside given stand down orders? If there is ever a need for a special prosecutor this case is it.


Link to calls which went from 39 to 23.

https://www.rt.com/usa/419696-florida-school-shooting-cruz-sheriff/

Sheriff Israel Corruption

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/23/broward-county-sheriff-has-history-of-controversy/

Coral Springs Police Upset with Broward Deputies

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/parkland-school-shooting-broward-deputies/index.html

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk