No Longer a Joke: Killings at Waffle House

[luthervol]

Go talk to yourself in the corner or with other gun grabbing friends. I owe you no explanation or justification for any gun I own.

Try not to be so bitter. You have a long road (hopefully) ahead of you.

 

[GroverCleveland]

I lived in Grant Park (inner city Atlanta) for 7 years and my daughters share an apartment across the street from GA Tech. I think we live with less fear than 90% of the poster on the PF.

Whoa there! Grant Park has been gentrifried for a while. Now if you lived on Parsons, Fair St, DeSoto, Michigan Ave (basically along Joseph Lowery in that area) then get back with us.

 

[luthervol]

Whoa there! Grant Park has been gentrifried for a while. Now if you lived on Parsons, Fair St, DeSoto, Michigan Ave (basically along Joseph Lowery in that area) then get back with us.

Early 90's. I know what was within a 500 yard radius of my house.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Try not to be so bitter. You have a long road (hopefully) ahead of you.

I’m not bitter. I’m just done with this waste of time “discussion”. I don’t need to discuss anything. I purchased my firearms legally and I owe nobody a justification for any of them. It’s none of your damn business.

 

[GroverCleveland]

You're discounting the high number of "lost or stolen" guns used in crimes. Those guns were evidently "legally" owned by some fine, upstanding, law abiding citizen at one point.

I distinctly recall reading that theft of items like guns is illegal in all 50 states.

 

[GroverCleveland]

I'm not sure that putting everything under the umbrella of hunting rifles is your best long term strategy, but I get your angle. It may backfire.

The only way it backfires is if a general gun confiscation were to take place. I'll take my chances.

 

[K-town Vol Fan]

Whether I own no guns or 100 guns it's no business of yours. You feel safe, fantastic. So do I. Your lack of ownership does not impact me one whit, the same as my ownership has no impact on you.

It does if you blow a gasket and go on a shooting spree or if your guns are stolen and used for a shooting spree. There's simply no need for civilians to own an AR 15. Deal with it. You will have to in the near future, sorry. When the 2nd amendment was written all they had was muskets. Overkill is overkill.

 

[NorthDallas40]

It does if you blow a gasket and go on a shooting spree or if your guns are stolen and used for a shooting spree. There's simply no need for civilians to own an AR 15. Deal with it. You will have to in the near future, sorry. When the 2nd amendment was written all they had was muskets. Overkill is overkill.

So now law abiding citizens are guilty of things they “might” do? You’re full of it. You can shove telling me what I need where the sun don’t shine. It’s none of your damn business. I will not sweat justifying any need for any firearm I own in the near or distant future. Are you going to take them from me?

 

[GroverCleveland]

Early 90's. I know what was within a 500 yard radius of my house.

I know Grant Park and the Wild, Wild West and they are no way, no how, the same. Your statement implied a bravado of living in inner city Atlanta. And "inner city" means a lot of different things in Atlanta neighborhoods.

Regardless, who are you to decide how people should/should not protect themselves based on your choice to live in a gentrifried "inner city" neighborhood?

 

[luthervol]

The only way it backfires is if a general gun confiscation were to take place. I'll take my chances.

You're safe on the general gun confiscation, not going to happen. Nobody has ever advocated for that and never will....I think it must be an NRA scare tactic.

You miss the point on the backfire, but I'll let you try to figure that one out. Good mental exercise.

And yea, it's illegal in all 50 states to steal guns; great input, albeit completely irrelevant.

 

[tumscalcium]

It does if you blow a gasket and go on a shooting spree or if your guns are stolen and used for a shooting spree. There's simply no need for civilians to own an AR 15. Deal with it. You will have to in the near future, sorry. When the 2nd amendment was written all they had was muskets. Overkill is overkill.

Why do you think “Needs” matter?

Does the 2A say muskets?

 

[T-TownVol]

It does if you blow a gasket and go on a shooting spree or if your guns are stolen and used for a shooting spree. There's simply no need for civilians to own an AR 15. Deal with it. You will have to in the near future, sorry. When the 2nd amendment was written all they had was muskets. Overkill is overkill.

Wow...just wow....keep digging....

 

[GroverCleveland]

When the 2nd amendment was written all they had was muskets. Overkill is overkill.

That is incorrect. They also had cannon. And Kentucky rifles, which provided a distinct tactical advantage to the colonists armed with them during the Revolutionary War.

 

[NorthDallas40]

That is incorrect. They also had cannon. And Kentucky rifles, which provided a distinct tactical advantage to the colonists armed with them during the Revolutionary War.

The whole stupid “muskets” dialog is an idiotic taking point. Thankfully our founding fathers were way smarter than these gun grabbing libtards and easily understood firearm technology was not static and frozen in time. It’s absolute lunacy to even try to spin that idiotic statement.

 

[ajvol01]

It does if you blow a gasket and go on a shooting spree or if your guns are stolen and used for a shooting spree. There's simply no need for civilians to own an AR 15. Deal with it. You will have to in the near future, sorry. When the 2nd amendment was written all they had was muskets. Overkill is overkill.

Muskets, huh?

So do all journalists have to go back to using these?

 

[luthervol]

I know Grant Park and the Wild, Wild West and they are no way, no how, the same. Your statement implied a bravado of living in inner city Atlanta. And "inner city" means a lot of different things in Atlanta neighborhoods.

Regardless, who are you to decide how people should/should not protect themselves based on your choice to live in a gentrifried "inner city" neighborhood?

You obviously don't know much about the early 90's. No bravado intended. The statement was in context of needing guns in order to provide home security. Who are you to claim people need to be armed in order to provide home security? Some feel they do, some feel they don't. I've had a number of posters on here infer that if you're not armed, you're not providing proper security to your family and loved ones. We even had an hysterical running joke about people coming to my house and stealing my stuff since I was unable to defend myself. That's what I find presumptuous. Plus, remember, I have never once said people should not have the right to own guns for home security. NEVER. NOT ONCE.

 

[GroverCleveland]

In fact, I'll go so far as to say most individuals armed with an AR-15 style rifle would consider surrender as a pretty viable option if faced by a battery of 6lb field guns circa 1776.

Loaded with grape/canister, a field gun from that era had an effective kill zone up to 600 yds.

 

[luthervol]

In fact, I'll go so far as to say most individuals armed with an AR-15 style rifle would consider surrender as a pretty viable option if faced by a battery of 6lb field guns circa 1776.

Loaded with grape/canister, a field gun from that era had an effective kill zone up to 600 yds.

Did 2a guarantee the right to own 6lb field guns circa 1776? Did it guarantee the right to own weaponry equal to that of the military?

 

[GroverCleveland]

Early 90's. I know what was within a 500 yard radius of my house.

My mistake as I misread this post. But Grant Park was not the Wild, Wild West even in the early 90s. And yes, I did know it. Attended a family reunion there every year.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Did 2a guarantee the right to own 6lb field guns circa 1776? Did it guarantee the right to own weaponry equal to that of the military?

2a places zero limitations on the type of or amount of arms as it is written. I don’t see how this is even debatable if you just read the text. It’s very clear.

Here is 2a. Show me where type of arms is explicitly limited.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Orangeburst]

Did 2a guarantee the right to own 6lb field guns circa 1776? Did it guarantee the right to own weaponry equal to that of the military?[/QUOT

Well, that is the purpose of the national guard.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Did 2a guarantee the right to own 6lb field guns circa 1776? Did it guarantee the right to own weaponry equal to that of the military?

Actually it did and the Founders were well aware of it. Lexington and Concorde was not about the government's attempt to seize squirrel guns.

You really need to learn something about the military history of the era. Here is a free one: Government (British and Tory) troops were armed with Brown Bess muskets, effective range of about 80 yards. A Kentucky rifle was good to over 300.

 

[luthervol]

2a places zero limitations on the type of or amount of arms as it is written. I don’t see how this is even debatable if you just read the text. It’s very clear.

Then that obviously, once again, leads to the questions about anti-aircraft guns, nukes, surface to air missiles, grenades, ICBMs, rocket launchers, etc...

Most Americans feel that 2a does not guarantee the right to own those things. Which brings one to the obvious conclusion that 2a has rational and reasonable limits.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Then that obviously, once again, leads to the questions about anti-aircraft guns, nukes, surface to air missiles, grenades, ICBMs, rocket launchers, etc...

Most Americans feel that 2a does not guarantee the right to own those things. Which brings one to the obvious conclusion that 2a has rational and reasonable limits.

Yep. Hard to tell the difference between an MIRVED MX missile and a semi-automatic long arm. I can see why you think guns should be regulated and AR15s banned.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Then that obviously, once again, leads to the questions about anti-aircraft guns, nukes, surface to air missiles, grenades, rocket launchers, etc...2a does absolutely nothing to prevent this. Read it above. No exceptions are stated within 2a.

Most Americans feel that 2a does not guarantee the right to own those things. Which brings one to the obvious conclusion that 2a has rational and reasonable limits.I reject this statement outright. Prove it’s factual basis. And no your latest convenient poll of the week isn’t compelling evidence

Again it’s none of your business what firearms I own legally. While 2a does nothing to limit any type of weapon ownership as you well know as we’ve told you many times NFA1934 establishes those weapons restricted for general ownership and provides a strict permitting process. That is the law of the land. An no where in that law does the term “assault weapon” show up and it has no legal definition. That’s it.