Walk Up, Not Out

[Bootstrap]

Boot, do you really honestly think that if AR-15s aren't available, people who want to kill a lot of people won't find some other way to do it?

The deadliest school attack in US history was with a bomb, not guns, and bombs are very easy to make.

I've already addressed this many times. We already regulate explosives, chemical weapons, and biological weapons extensively enough that terrorists have turned to guns.

What about the serial bomber week before last in Texas?

I'm not proposing that we roll back regulations on explosives the way we have rolled back regulations on guns. We want to prevent both kinds of terrorism.

What do you think about the fact that George Soros & Planned Parenthood backed 'the March' and sure enough, the democrats set up voting registrations tables at the march. Do we not recognize the agenda here?

See, that's precisely what drives me nuts. Instead of discussing which policies make sense, it all becomes a question of which political tribe wins or loses. If you put politics aside, isn't it obvious that this is a major factor in school shootings? I don't think we can even start to think about these things rationally without first dismissing the political tribalism.

And it's a little strange to see Mennonites thinking it's vitally important to protect this:

[video][/video]

[Valerie]

See, that's precisely what drives me nuts. Instead of discussing which policies make sense, it all becomes a question of which political tribe wins or loses. If you put politics aside, isn't it obvious that this is a major factor in school shootings? I don't think we can even start to think about these things rationally without first dismissing the political tribalism.

Hey- don't blame being nuts on me!

Sorry, I couldn't resist- I was non resistant

But there IS an agenda- like it or not. If there wasn't, these same people would be pro-life advocates as well.

[Bootstrap]

Hey- don't blame being nuts on me!

Sorry, I couldn't resist- I was non resistant

Those were both really good lines ... thanks for the laugh.

But there IS an agenda- like it or not. If there wasn't, these same people would be pro-life advocates as well.

These students have just seen some of their classmates killed. These teachers have just seen some of their students killed. Preventing that is their primary objective. You can agree or disagree with their proposals, but to imply that they don't really care about school shootings is disingenuous.

Can we no longer talk about what is good or right or sensible? Does everything have to be evaluated through a political lens, asking which tribe wins or loses instead?

Does anyone really believe that school shootings have nothing at all to do with this?

[video][/video]

[Robert]

We already regulate explosives, chemical weapons, and biological weapons extensively enough that terrorists have turned to guns.

And AR-15s or any other weapon that is automatic fire as that clip is regulated also.

That is not the gun used. Only semi automatic AR-15s are legal without special permission or certifications.

This is like equating the pickup the guy used in NYC to run over the pedestrians was really an 18 wheeler or train.

Almost all semi automatic rifles will fire at the same, or close rate, that the AR-15 does. A pistol will fire at that same rate.

So regulation has little to do with weapon of choice for those who choose to do harm. AR-15s are easily available. Ban them, they will move to the next thing easily available. Ban knives and vehicles. They will still find clubs and build bombs to do their work. I suspect you could run down as many people on a horse with a sword on a busy walkway.

[Valerie]

Hey- don't blame being nuts on me!

Sorry, I couldn't resist- I was non resistant

Those were both really good lines ... thanks for the laugh.

But there IS an agenda- like it or not. If there wasn't, these same people would be pro-life advocates as well.

These students have just seen some of their classmates killed. These teachers have just seen some of their students killed. Preventing that is their primary objective. You can agree or disagree with their proposals, but to imply that they don't really care about school shootings is disingenuous.

Can we no longer talk about what is good or right or sensible? Does everything have to be evaluated through a political lens, asking which tribe wins or loses instead?

Does anyone really believe that school shootings have nothing at all to do with this?

[video][/video]

I totally undertand how the students must feel- I really get that- and of course they want to see something done to protect them- why wouldn't we all wish the same? I think we do. I know I do.
I just realize that the ban won't stop the killing is all. And that the students are being used as political pawns without even really realizing it- you think they are organizing all these things by themselves?

By the way, I do agree with Robert's post above- I just don't believe this is THE answer to solve the problem- I think you do-
I am not defending guns, I don't think people on MN are defending guns- just seeing an agenda? And realizng weapons come in many forms. IT WILL NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM-

[Bootstrap]

We already regulate explosives, chemical weapons, and biological weapons extensively enough that terrorists have turned to guns.

And AR-15s or any other weapon that is automatic fire as that clip is regulated also.

That is not the gun used. Only semi automatic AR-15s are legal without special permission or certifications.

Ooops, you're right, that's a full automatic, my mistake. I have never fired anything more powerful than a single-shot 22.

But even a semi-automatic AR-15 can fire a lot of shots quickly. I guess this is the weapon used by most mass shooters?

[video][/video]

[Bootstrap]

By the way, I do agree with Robert's post above- I just don't believe this is THE answer to solve the problem- I think you do-
I am not defending guns, I don't think people on MN are defending guns- just seeing an agenda? And realizng weapons come in many forms. IT WILL NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM-

I'm actually not sure what will solve the problem. I am mostly frustrated by discussions that are dominated by political talking points, focusing on which political tribe wins. And I'm definitely convinced that gun worship is part of the problem.

I just realize that the ban won't stop the killing is all. And that the students are being used as political pawns without even really realizing it- you think they are organizing all these things by themselves?

Banning the AR-15, you mean? I don't know, I do think it's worth discussing. To me, it feels like some people absolutely refuse to entertain the notion that shootings have something to do with guns, or that the weapon most used for mass killings might be worth discussing. I get frustrated that the discussion often gets shouted down before it can even start. At this point, I'm very convinced that licensing and registering guns, ensuring that all gun sales have background checks, etc., are reasonable measures that make a difference.

And I think all of us are being used as political pawns without even really realizing it. Facebook's algorithms tell people which messages you are vulnerable to, protecting you from other points of view. People live in their politicized thought bubbles. Cambridge Analytica boasts that knowing your specific fears is the best way to create campaigns to win you over to a particular political tribe.

So it's only natural that in this environment, people think in terms of which political tribe wins. And in that atmosphere, protecting weapons that kill seems somehow related to preventing unborn babies from being killed. People in both political tribes are trying to manipulate us, play on our fears, convince us to repeat their talking points.

[Josh]

And it's a little strange to see Mennonites thinking it's vitally important to protect this:

[video][/video]

I don't watch non-instructional video on YouTube, although I did see that video back before I held this stance.

I think what's really strange is that you think conservative Mennonites would be in favour of passing all kinds of laws to restrict other people's freedom. If you want me to start to design model legislation, well, I'd probably start with something to break up big companies (like YouTube), restrict marketing video like YouTube to children, for example, and other stuff like that. Guns would be pretty far down my list.

But we don't believe in participating in the political sphere, so we don't do that.

[Josh]

Does anyone really believe that school shootings have nothing at all to do with this?

[video][/video]

Boot, I'm going to call you to task for what is either ignorance or dishonesty on your part, now that I remember what that video is.

The person is showing a legally registered pre-1986 machinegun, which requires extensive background checks to possess or transfer, and which costs upwards of $30,000. Here's an example of one for sale:

https://dealernfa.com/shop/colt-m16a1-c ... 24-fjv032/

Obtaining one of those requires getting a clearance letter from local law enforcement that they think you are someone who should own a machinegun, paying a tax stamp, submitting to a background check with the ATF, paying a $200 tax, using a licenced firearms dealer to arrange the transfer, and waiting around 6 months for all this paperwork to go through.

None of these guns have been legally manufactured and sold since 1986. And, to my knowledge, none has been used anywhere close to a school shooting.

[Josh]

Banning the AR-15, you mean? I don't know, I do think it's worth discussing. To me, it feels like some people absolutely refuse to entertain the notion that shootings have something to do with guns, or that the weapon most used for mass killings might be worth discussing. I get frustrated that the discussion often gets shouted down before it can even start. At this point, I'm very convinced that licensing and registering guns, ensuring that all gun sales have background checks, etc., are reasonable measures that make a difference.

That's why it's odd you showed a video of an M-16, which is a gun that cannot be transferred or possessed without quite extensive background checks.

And I think all of us are being used as political pawns without even really realizing it.

You might want to consider if you are one of these people.

Facebook's algorithms tell people which messages you are vulnerable to, protecting you from other points of view. People live in their politicized thought bubbles. Cambridge Analytica boasts that knowing your specific fears is the best way to create campaigns to win you over to a particular political tribe.

Do they? I don't use Facebook except for participating on Messenger. I don't use YouTube. As a church, we feel such things are to be avoided, and that engaging in them is a sign of spiritual decay. And we don't participate in presidential campaigns.

So it's only natural that in this environment, people think in terms of which political tribe wins. And in that atmosphere, protecting weapons that kill seems somehow related to preventing unborn babies from being killed. People in both political tribes are trying to manipulate us, play on our fears, convince us to repeat their talking points.

I'd challenge you to try to think outside of your box a bit, and consider that maybe not all of us are concerned with our political tribe winning. Some of us actually think that freedom of speech and other rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights are a good idea, and we don't agree with your opinion that the second amendment is obsolete and doesn't apply in the modern era. And that's not because we are aligned with some particular political tribe.