Armed Subject Reported at Texas Walmart, Police Say - Polidicks

[QUOTE=srobins;50521475] I never said he was preferable but whatever, do your thing.[/QUOTE] It doesn't have to be specifically you, you implied that Clintons position would lead to a President Trump, which means people in general would think Trump is the preferable choice. It's still tragic. [editline]14th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=upsideonion;50521232] you always bring up the most autistic shit on anything gun-related[/QUOTE] internet debate.

[QUOTE=srobins;50521631]As for "gun rights are expanding constantly in america".. How are gun rights expanding? As a person who actually lives in America I'm excited to hear what surprising third-party information you have in the UK that us Americans don't know about regarding our gun rights.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us/missouri-lawmakers-pass-sweeping-gun-rights-expansion.html[/url] [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/06/obama-said-the-nation-has-been-inactive-on-gun-legislation-heres-why-hes-wrong/[/url] [url]http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/23/gun-rights-expansion-approved-house/80814146/[/url] [url]http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/washington-dc-gun-laws/[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Aguilar[/url] there's also worth mentioning that most states had concealed carry banned until the 1980s (today nearly every state allows you to conceal carry), and that a bunch of other states have either expanded rights or dropped/loosened restrictions on a whole myriad of things guns aren't under attack, they're getting stronger

Props to SWAT for stopping him without any loss of innocent life.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50521698][url]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us/missouri-lawmakers-pass-sweeping-gun-rights-expansion.html[/url] [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/06/obama-said-the-nation-has-been-inactive-on-gun-legislation-heres-why-hes-wrong/[/url] [url]http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/23/gun-rights-expansion-approved-house/80814146/[/url] [url]http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/washington-dc-gun-laws/[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Aguilar[/url] there's also worth mentioning that most states had concealed carry banned until the 1980s (today nearly every state allows you to conceal carry), and that a bunch of other states have either expanded rights or dropped/loosened restrictions on a whole myriad of things guns aren't under attack, they're getting stronger[/QUOTE] So.. Open carry, kids under 14 can use firearms with parental supervision, and some court rulings that reiterate that the 2nd Amendment exists and is valid? Meanwhile the possible next POTUS is calling for a wide ban on "assault weapons" and virtually every time a shooting takes place, Obama and a handful of other politicians call for bans on certain weapons, magazines, accessories, etc. I don't think being allowed to open carry in southern states means that there is no longer a steady stream of anti-gun legislation that is attempting to be passed in America.

[QUOTE=srobins;50521276]Who cares? What a stupid and insulting response. As if anybody actually gives a shit about some idiot gunman getting shot. Nobody is allowed to say anything unless it's anti-gun, otherwise the fake compassion squad will call you out with a pretentious post like this. If your first reaction is "let's ban guns", you're all good, but if your response is the opposite, you're a sociopath and you should be crying solemn tears for a stranger you've never met. Give me a break.[/QUOTE] Is it that bad to hold off for one goddamn minute without thinking "let's see how the death of a crowd of people will help me push my agenda"? Edit: Since you couldn't figure it out, I'm talking about the club shooting.

[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;50521796]Is it that bad to hold off for one goddamn minute without thinking "let's see how the death of a crowd of people will help me push my agenda"?[/QUOTE] Crowd of people being the armed gunman killed by a SWAT team?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50521357]to be honest i more often hear the opposite. there are many people with the opinion that if only there had been more people carrying guns then mass shootings would be less common and less damaging literally every single time one of these mass shootings happens, you have loads of people arguing that more guns are needed and that any attempt to put in restrictions upon firearms is tantamount to treason [/quote] Bill o Reilly did an interview with Colbert regarding the recent shooting and said he supported a federal ban on assault weapons. Even most zealous of right wing ideologues are softening to the idea of AWB. IMO its just a matter of time (and sadly lives) before people see sense. Even if assault weapons were banned why was such an asshole allowed a gun. Openly homophobic and racist, violent to his ex wife, contact with known radical islamists, investigated by the FBI. For the sake of everybody elses freedom, life and pursuit of happiness he should forfeit the right to own a weapon designed specifically to kill people. [quote] how depressing that a man who advocates torture, banning people from the country on account of their religion, overturning gay marriage, who believes that global warming was invented by the chinese, and that vaccines cause autism, is somehow a preferable choice[/QUOTE] Some people just like a strong man. They need a strong alpha male to tell them what to do.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50521973]Even if assault weapons were banned why was such an asshole allowed a gun. Openly homophobic and racist, violent to his ex wife, contact with known radical islamists, investigated by the FBI. For the sake of everybody elses freedom, life and pursuit of happiness he should forfeit the right to own a weapon designed specifically to kill people.[/QUOTE] What does this mean? The killer should have voluntarily given up his right to own a weapon? I don't understand. You know he'd just get a different gun if it weren't an AR15 right?

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50521973]Bill o Reilly did an interview with Colbert regarding the recent shooting and said he supported a federal ban on assault weapons. Even most zealous of right wing ideologues are softening to the idea of AWB. IMO its just a matter of time (and sadly lives) before people see sense. Even if assault weapons were banned why was such an asshole allowed a gun. Openly homophobic and racist, violent to his ex wife, contact with known radical islamists, investigated by the FBI. For the sake of everybody elses freedom, life and pursuit of happiness he should forfeit the right to own a weapon designed specifically to kill people. Some people just like a strong man. They need a strong alpha male to tell them what to do.[/QUOTE] O'Reilly has always held some more middle of the road ideas. He's not nearly as far right as people try to make him out to be.

Bill O'Reilly came very close to (but didn't quite actually do it) supporting gay marriage IIRC

[QUOTE=srobins;50521749]So.. Open carry, kids under 14 can use firearms with parental supervision, and some court rulings that reiterate that the 2nd Amendment exists and is valid? Meanwhile the possible next POTUS is calling for a wide ban on "assault weapons" and virtually every time a shooting takes place, Obama and a handful of other politicians call for bans on certain weapons, magazines, accessories, etc. I don't think being allowed to open carry in southern states means that there is no longer a steady stream of anti-gun legislation that is attempting to be passed in America.[/QUOTE] On a federal level there is absolutely not a steady stream of anti-gun legislation attempting to be passed in America. One bill made it to the house floor and didn't receive the votes. A bill that would have done basically nothing regarding your rights to sell and carry. Congress during Obama's term was so afraid of pushing gun regulation that they were scared of even nominally supporting it at a surface level. You can't counter physical evidence with theoretical fearmongering. You asked for proof and he provided it, don't move the goalposts.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50521973]Even if assault weapons were banned why was such an asshole allowed a gun. Openly homophobic and racist, violent to his ex wife, contact with known radical islamists, investigated by the FBI.[/QUOTE] That's the fault of the US legal system as well as his employer and associates. He was investigated by the FBI, but the investigation was closed and he was not charged. Some associates (such as his wife) did not report crimes or actions that would have prevented him from buying a gun. In one case, his coworker reported him to his employer (G4S Security) several times, and they ignored it. The coworker actually quit because nobody would take action. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50521973]Bill o Reilly did an interview with Colbert regarding the recent shooting and said he supported a federal ban on assault weapons. Even most zealous of right wing ideologues are softening to the idea of AWB. IMO its just a matter of time (and sadly lives) before people see sense.[/QUOTE] There is nothing sensible about the AWB, it's worthless legislation that mostly bans weapons based on cosmetics. It doesn't prevent crime in the slightest, it just hinders citizens by limiting what they can buy. Even the name "Assault Weapon" was carefully picked because most people including politicians and activists confuse it with "Assault Rifle". You would not believe how many people think you can just walk into Walmart and buy a military specification M4A1 Carbine with your driver's license. In the end "Assault Weapon" is a useless scare-term used to confuse civilian weapons with military weapons in order to more easily convince people we need to ban them.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50522067]There is nothing sensible about the AWB, it's worthless legislation that mostly bans weapons based on cosmetics. It doesn't prevent crime in the slightest, it just hinders citizens by limiting what they can buy. Even the name "Assault Weapon" was carefully picked because most people including politicians and activists confuse it with "Assault Rifle". You would not believe how many people think you can just walk into Walmart and buy a military specification M4A1 Carbine with your driver's license. In the end "Assault Weapon" is a useless scare-term used to confuse civilian weapons with military weapons in order to more easily convince people we need to ban them.[/QUOTE] It's a textbook case of a feel good issue. It makes people feel like they're doing good.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50520848]Honestly, with how Obama is ramping up his cunting and bantering, it could be some guys open carrying. Not to mention a recent case stated that concealed carry is not covered by the 2nd Amendment, so could be someone protesting that and proving that open carry would cause more issues then concealed carry. Loading Tweet... [URL]https://twitter.com/AmarilloPD/status/742768160042942467[/URL] Calling it now, one of the recent refugees from California just saw someone with a gun for the first time in their lives and had a stroke. That or someone from "Moms Against Fun" is wasting police resources and time because someone open carrying was triggering them.[/QUOTE] The supreme court of the U.S already ruled that american citizens have a right to carry loaded guns in public for self defense. So if they ban concealed carry the court ruled the state must allow open carry.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50522066]On a federal level there is absolutely not a steady stream of anti-gun legislation attempting to be passed in America. One bill made it to the house floor and didn't receive the votes. A bill that would have done basically nothing regarding your rights to sell and carry. Congress during Obama's term was so afraid of pushing gun regulation that they were scared of even nominally supporting it at a surface level. You can't counter physical evidence with theoretical fearmongering. You asked for proof and he provided it, don't move the goalposts.[/QUOTE] The fact that legislation fails doesn't change the fact that there is a constant, ongoing debate about gun rights with plenty of citizens and politicians proposing varying degrees of control and bans on weaponry, which is what I'm referring to, and which is what people react to.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50521973]Bill o Reilly did an interview with Colbert regarding the recent shooting and said he supported a federal ban on assault weapons. Even most zealous of right wing ideologues are softening to the idea of AWB. IMO its just a matter of time (and sadly lives) before people see sense. Even if assault weapons were banned why was such an asshole allowed a gun. Openly homophobic and racist, violent to his ex wife, contact with known radical islamists, investigated by the FBI. For the sake of everybody elses freedom, life and pursuit of happiness he should forfeit the right to own a weapon designed specifically to kill people. Some people just like a strong man. They need a strong alpha male to tell them what to do.[/QUOTE] Assault weapon is a made up word. See my post above. The same exact gun can go from a "hunting rifle" to an "assault weapon" in less than a minute with a simple cosmetic swap-out of the stock. It's a political buzzword. There is no such thing as an assault weapon. There are semi-automatic, automatics, and assault rifles. Assault rifles/automatics already require special permits to own and are extremely rarely (have they ever?) used in crime. AWB of 1993 didn't do anything to stop gun violence. It's demonstrably a waste of time in practice. [quote] A 2004 critical review of firearms research by a National Research Council committee said that an academic study of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes." The committee noted that the study's authors said the guns were used criminally with relative rarity before the ban and that its maximum potential effect on gun violence outcomes would be very small.[26] In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.[27][/quote] It's like banning red cars with spoilers in hopes of curbing drunk driving deaths.

[QUOTE=srobins;50522096]The fact that legislation fails doesn't change the fact that there is a constant, ongoing debate about gun rights with plenty of citizens and politicians proposing varying degrees of control and bans on weaponry, which is what I'm referring to, and which is what people react to.[/QUOTE] Okay so now you are saying a constant, ongoing debate. The problem is you said there was a steady stream of anti-gun legislation. These are not at all the same thing.

It shouldn't be surprising that there's an ongoing debate with the amount of gun deaths we have in this country. You can be as pro-gun as you want but you should at least acknowledge we sure do a lot of killing with them. Seems obvious politicians are going to use that debate to further their agendas. (on both sides of the aisle)

[QUOTE=OvB;50522144]Assault weapon is a made up word.[/QUOTE] Every classification is a "made up word". We make them up to classify things, as that classification likely didn't exist before. It might be a bit of a vague and nebulous classification, but it's not bad because it's "made up".

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50520848]Honestly, with how Obama is ramping up his cunting and bantering, it could be some guys open carrying. Not to mention a recent case stated that concealed carry is not covered by the 2nd Amendment, so could be someone protesting that and proving that open carry would cause more issues then concealed carry. Loading Tweet... [URL]https://twitter.com/AmarilloPD/status/742768160042942467[/URL] Calling it now, one of the recent refugees from California just saw someone with a gun for the first time in their lives and had a stroke. That or someone from "Moms Against Fun" is wasting police resources and time because someone open carrying was triggering them.[/QUOTE] I still can't get over this post holy shit dude do you have to bring your dislike of refugees into every thread?

[QUOTE=srobins;50522096]The fact that legislation fails doesn't change the fact that there is a constant, ongoing debate about gun rights with plenty of citizens and politicians proposing varying degrees of control and bans on weaponry, which is what I'm referring to, and which is what people react to.[/QUOTE] this is despite the fact that laws which propose to restrict guns either get nowhere or are found unconstitutional and are dropped and that there has been a steady expansion of numerous other small pieces of gun legislation which by themselves would be insignificant but in bulk are very noteworthy indeed i mean only a fool would look at the past 30 years and then think that somehow gun rights are under attack when existing gun control laws have been steadily eroded for years now, with the supreme court lending a great deal of support to the cause through their rulings even AWB wasn't renewed and attempts to bring it back have gotten nowhere like what anti-gun legislation is actually getting passed these days on anywhere near the same scale as legislation relaxing gun restrictions?

[QUOTE=OvB;50522170]It shouldn't be surprising that there's an ongoing debate with the amount of gun deaths we have in this country. You can be as pro-gun as you want but you should at least acknowledge we sure do a lot of killing with them. Seems obvious politicians are going to use that debate to further their agendas. (on both sides of the aisle)[/QUOTE] Yeah I mean I'm pretty sure my post history has made it abundantly clear that I'm generally pro-gun and haven't been convinced that any suggested measures (especially another AWB) would actually help reducing gun violence any more than trying to simply reduce [B]violence [/B]would. But I just don't see any evidence of sweeping gun reform happening any time soon either like a lot of people are in constant fear of. Everything indicates to me that Democrats see guns as a lose/lose issue and it's easier to pay lip service to those on the left who want more regulation then just push legislation. [editline]14th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Killuah;50522191]I still can't get over this post holy shit dude do you have to bring your dislike of refugees into every thread?[/QUOTE] Refugees from California being actual Americans fleeing their state for greener pastures (literally).

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50522172]Every classification is a "made up word". We make them up to classify things, as that classification likely didn't exist before. It might be a bit of a vague and nebulous classification, but it's not bad because it's "made up".[/QUOTE] It's not bad because it's made up. It's bad because it was designed to sound scary and threatening. Despite the law itself being a wet noodle that did nothing to stop death.

[QUOTE=OvB;50522144]Assault weapon is a made up word. See my post above. The same exact gun can go from a "hunting rifle" to an "assault weapon" in less than a minute with a simple cosmetic swap-out of the stock. It's a political buzzword. There is no such thing as an assault weapon. There are semi-automatic, automatics, and assault rifles. Assault rifles/automatics already require special permits to own and are extremely rarely (have they ever?) used in crime. AWB of 1993 didn't do anything to stop gun violence. It's demonstrably a waste of time in practice. It's like banning red cars with spoilers in hopes of curbing drunk driving deaths.[/QUOTE] I think the only time automatics were used in a high-profile crime was the North Hollywood shooutout in 1997, and those were "illegally modified" to be full-auto so I don't know if that counts. Interestingly enough out of the literal thousands of rounds fired the only people who died were the shooters. Just wanted to chip in, but I agree the AWB is a total waste.

[QUOTE=Killuah;50522191]I still can't get over this post holy shit dude do you have to bring your dislike of refugees into every thread?[/QUOTE] He's not talking about the middle eastern refugees, if that is what you're thinking. Put down the pitchfork. He is probably talking about people, anyone, who moves from California to a new state, usually referred to as California transplants (probably joking and calling them refugees to poke fun at how ass California is), who move to a new state, tell everyone how California was better and how much they miss it, and try to push California style values on to the populace of wherever they moved to. They're generally despised because no one outside of Cali likes uppity Californians and all they bring for the most part for the most part.

[QUOTE=wystan;50522337]I think the only time automatics were used in a high-profile crime was the North Hollywood shooutout in 1997, and those were "illegally modified" to be full-auto so I don't know if that counts. Interestingly enough out of the literal thousands of rounds fired the only people who died were the shooters. Just wanted to chip in, but I agree the AWB is a total waste.[/QUOTE] There's been a few shootings that ended in deaths with legally owned automatics, 1934, 1988, and 1992.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;50522426]There's been a few shootings that ended in deaths with legally owned automatics, 1934, 1988, and 1992.[/QUOTE] Out of curiousity do you have the info on those? I'm looking but all I can find are a few stray forum posts mentioning years but no details. Something about two of those three being done by cops, and at least one of them involving a Mac 10.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50522172]Every classification is a "made up word". We make them up to classify things, as that classification likely didn't exist before. It might be a bit of a vague and nebulous classification, but it's not bad because it's "made up".[/QUOTE] I [I]barely[/I] give a fuck about guns but the assault weapon bans are dumb and made up [IMG]http://www.newclarion.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/assaultweapons-300x200.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://monachuslex.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Assault_Weapon-300x203.jpeg[/IMG] They're functionally the same, this is like banning "racing-style cars" and then arresting people for having spoilers or white paint.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50522172]Every classification is a "made up word". We make them up to classify things, as that classification likely didn't exist before. It might be a bit of a vague and nebulous classification, but it's not bad because it's "made up".[/QUOTE] It's not just "vague and nebulous," it's downright nonsensical. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#Definitions_and_usage[/url] [quote]Common attributes used in legislative definitions of assault weapons include: Semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine[14][11] Folding or telescoping (collapsible) stock,[14] which reduces the overall length of the firearm[16] Pistol grip, whether rifle, shotgun, or pistol[14] Bayonet lug,[14] which allows the mounting of a bayonet Threaded barrel, which can accept devices such as a flash suppressor, Suppressor,[14] compensator or muzzle brake Grenade launcher[14] Barrel shroud, which prevents burning of shooter's arm or hand as a safety device.[/quote] These are all either barely-significant or outright cosmetic.

[QUOTE=phygon;50522628]I [I]barely[/I] give a fuck about guns but the assault weapon bans are dumb and made up[/QUOTE] You're missing the point. It being "made up" is literally meaningless, all classifications are "made up" so we can classify things. It being just generally kind of shit however is something to complain about. If you're going to do regulation of anything, do it right for fucks sake.