Tim Walz Can Not Waltz Back His Pro Gun Political Career

“Tim Walz. He works for us.” – the NRA (see video below)

Tim Walz was a strong supporter of Republican/NRA gun policy from the beginning of his political career. There wasn’t a moment that he wavered in his support for access to assault style weapons such as those used to kill 17 people at Stoneman Douglas High School last week, or large magazines and other enhancements that were used in several of the 52 spree killings that occurred during Walz’s political career. His sudden realization that assault rifles are bad and that we have to address our gun problem can only be seen as a craven attempt to garner votes in an election that has attracted the interest of a growing and increasingly better informed progressive electorate.

The school children who died at Red Lake.
On April 21st, 2005, sixteen year old Jeff Weise shot police sergeant Daryl Lussier – his grandfather – two times in the head and ten times in the chest. He retrieved Lussier’s Glock handgun and his 12 guage shotgun, a bullet proof vest, and a stash of ammo. Sergeant Lussier’s girlfriend appeared on the scene unexpectedly, so Jeff shot her to death as well.

Jeff Weise then took Sergeant Lussier’s squad car to Red Lake Senior High, where Weise had been a student just a few months earlier. The school had a metal detector staffed by two security guards. Weise killed one of them and chased off the other, then entered the school.

By the end of the spree shooting, Jeff Weise had killed six students, a teacher, the security guard, the police sergeant and his girlfriend. He also killed himself.

Around the same time, Tim Walz started his campaign for a seat in the United States House of Representatives, representing Minnesota’s First Congressional District. He was elected in 2006, and has served in the years since.

Protest at Virginia Tech following the mass shooting there.
Including the Red Lake Massacre, there were eleven notable gun massacres just prior to and during Walz’s first term in Congress. Mass shootings in Red Lake, Minnesota; Goleta, California; Seattle, Washington; Lancaster County, Pennsylvania; Salt Lake City, Utah; Blacksburg, Virginia; Crandon, Wisconsin; Omaha, Nebraska; Kirkwwood, Missouri; DeKalb, Illinois; and Henderson, Kentucky took a total of 101 lives and left 68 additional people wounded. Three of them were school shootings, including the horrific Virginia Tech massacre.

In a recent mailing, Congressman Keith Ellison said, “Make no mistake about it. The lax gun laws LaPierre and the NRA have pushed for years are largely responsible for the massive number of gun deaths that are so outrageously common in our country today. It makes me sick that so many holding office fail to muster the courage to do the right thing, tragedy after tragedy. It’s repulsive.

During the same year, Walz took $5,000 in four separate contributions from the National Rifle Association (NRA), and co-sponsored an NRA-backed bill banning gun registration and trigger lock requirements in Washington DC.

The Mankato Free Press, a paper published in Walz’s Congressional District, noted that Walz was happy to see the Supreme Court uphold a lower court decision that overthrew restrictive gun laws in Washington, DC. Walz said, “Gun ownership is a basic right in America, not to be infringed upon by anyone or any government entity. [The decision] is a victory that gun-owners, hunters, sportsmen and everyday Americans waited too long for.”

Also in 2008, Walz voted with Republicans to pre-empt Washington DC’s gun safety laws requiring trigger locks and to repeal their ban on semiautomatic weapons.

President Barack Obama greets former Rep. Gabrielle “Gabby” Giffords and her husband, former astronaut Mark Kelly, in the Oval Office after they testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence, Jan. 30, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
The NRA announced that they were happy about Walz’s “…unwavering pro-gun support,” which earned him an “A” rating from the NRA, and an endorsement for his campaign. “Tim Walz believes in southern Minnesota values, and will continue to be a true and consistent friend in the U.S. House of Representatives. I encourage all gun-owners and NRA members to re-elect Tim Walz to the U.S. Congress,” the NRA Executive Director, Chris Cox said.

The southern tier of Minnesota, where Walz’s district lies, is one of the most conservative regions in the country, and Walz was doing a very good job representing the folks who live there, who would later vote overwhelming for Donald Trump.

Make no mistake about it. The lax gun laws LaPierre and the NRA have pushed for years are largely responsible for the massive number of gun deaths that are so outrageously common in our country today.

Congressman Keith Ellison, in a recent mailing, wrote, “Make no mistake about it. The lax gun laws LaPierre and the NRA have pushed for years are largely responsible for the massive number of gun deaths that are so outrageously common in our country today. It makes me sick that so many holding office fail to muster the courage to do the right thing, tragedy after tragedy. It’s repulsive.”
By the end of his first term, Congressman Tim Walz was a solid supporter of the NRA, was taking their money regularly, and paid the NRA back with votes against efforts to address the nation’s growing gun problem.

During Walz’s second term, there were 15 mass gun killings, with 138 dead and 132 wounded. This included a shooting in Binghamton, NY were 14 people were killed at an American Civic Association center for immigrants meeting, the notorius rampage by Nidal Malik Hasan at Fort Hood Texas (14 killed), the shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords (6 killed, 13 wounded in that spree), and the Dark Night Rises movie theater massacre (12 killed, 780 wounded).

The image of children fleeing the site of the massacre of their classmates and teachers changed the gun control narrative for many. But not all.
The month after his fellow House member Giffords was shot in the head, Walz cosponsored with Republicans and NRA-backed bill to force states to recognize concealed-carry permits issued by any other state, even if their requirements are not the same.

The very last shooting during this period was in Newtown Connecticut, when Adam Lanza killed his own mother, then drove to nearby Sandy Hook Elementary School where he killed 20 children and six adults, then himself.

Sandy Hook was a watershed moment in American politics; It was the day many got off the fence and became either a staunch opponent of what seemed like unfettered access to guns and ammo of all type, or a full throated supporter of NRA and Republican policy.

Walz went with the NRA and against the children of Sandy Hook Elementary and their families. The high powered weaponry Lanza used to blast apart the bodies of 20 small children were legally owned and protected by Tim Walz and his fellow gun industry supporters in Congress.

After the Emanuel AME spree shooting, Democratic Congressman John Lewis and other Democrats led a 26 hour sit in at the nation’s Capitol.
During that term, Walz voted with Republicans to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from promulgating or enforcing any regulations restricting guns in the National Park or National Wildlife Refuge Systems. He also voted to exempt guns from being taken as a result of bankruptcy proceedings.

During this same period he received just shy of $10,000 in contributions from the NRA across 6 donations, and once again earned the NRA’s endorsement as a “solidly pro-gun candidate.”

A mere 48 people were murdered in mass killing sprees during Walz’s next 2-year term, distributed across 8 events (40 wounded). Walz voted with Republicans yet again to pre-empt local control and override further attempts by Washington, DC to enforce their own gun-safety laws, preventing them from using any funds to enforce The Firearms Registration Amendment Act of 2008; The Firearms Amendment Act of 2012; or The Administrative Disposition for Weapons Offenses Amendment Act of 2012. He was endorsed by the NRA again and received three donations from them, totaling $3,000.

Protesters speak out following the Planned Parenthood mass shooting.
Walz’s next term saw 117 dead and 126 wounded across 13 mass shootings. This included the horrific Emanuel AME Church massacre in Charlestown, South Carolina, one mass shooting at a Planned Parenthood, the infamous San Bernadino massacre, and the horrific Pulse Nightclub shooting, which alone killed and wounded 102 people, most of them members of the LGBTQ community.

Near the end of this period, Walz was interviewed on The Uptake, a local independent news show. In that interview, he said that we should not ban assault style weapons or high capacity magazines containing in excess of 50 rounds of ammunition.

Angel Colon was shot six times in the anti-LGBTQ attack at the Pulse Nightclub.
Unsurprisingly, Walz was rewarded for his stalwart gun industry support with an NRA endorsement and $2,000 from the NRA. He also recieved $5,000 from the National Shooting Sports foundation, the front group for 8,000 gun manufacturers and dealers, and $2,000 form the Safari Club International.

During Walz’s present term, certain things changed. In less time on the calendar, a record 572 pepole were shot in mass shootings. The death count from these was 106. Since the most recent shooting was just a few days ago, these numbers are subject to change. One of this term’s shootings was the Las Vegas Strip Massacre, and another the recent shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School, in the bucolic Parkland Florida.

Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein took the opposite view from Walz on assault weapons.
Earlier in the term, Walz voted with Republicans to override president Obama’s rule restricting gun purchases by individuals who have been deemed incapable of managing their federal benefit payments. He also voted with Republicans to pass a bill that authorizes veterans deemed mentally incompetent to buy firearms, unless they are found by a judge to be dangerous to themselves or others. Suicide is at epidemic proportions among veterans, and the preferred method is by firearm, which is why many former top generals objected to this vote.

During the 4,700 days (12 years and 10 months) since the Red Lake Massacre, which occurred just as Tim Walz was starting his political carer, over 500 people have been killed and over 1,300 wounded in mass killings. During the same period, over 300,000 Americans have died of gunshot wounds, mostly from suicide, with criminal homicide next in line as a cause. A large number of those suicides and plenty of the homicides (which are often domestic abuse related) were made possible or made deadly because of the prevelance of more than 300 million guns in America and the dearth of regulations requiring guns to be safer, better secured, and accounted for.

During this same period, Congressman Tim Walz has recieved just under $28,000 in donations from gun industry groups, mainly the NRA. He has had a continuous endorsement by the gun lobby, and while he has voted in favor of background checks on numerous occasions, he has voted with Republicans to keep assault style weapons and high capacity magazines available to killers, to minimize the control of gun ownership where it really needs to be controlled, and to put a stop to local governments trying to get a handle on their own waves of killing by adopting sensible legislation.

Over the last few days, Walz has changed his mind on guns, now supporting legislation he has voted against numerous times in the past. Why? I assume that he was a full on NRA A-rated gun-supporter during the time that he represented a district where a large percentage of the voters were very conservative rural farmers. During the last election in that district, however, those farmers turned on Walz. He lost in most, possibly all, of the precincts that were mainly farm based, and was re-elected to his seat only barely, and with the votes of two academic and medically oriented communities in the region (Mankato State and the Rochester/Mayo medical community).

When Walz turned away from his district (which was about to turn away from him) to run for Governor of Minnesota, he made the claim that he was a true progressive who would never turn away from progressive values. However, at no time during Walz’s early foray into statewide politics did he eschew deadly assault weapons and high capacity cartridges, or turn away from his NRA support. He was never a progressive on firearms, or on most environmental issues either. He voted against EPA regulation protecting water in farmlands. He voted in favor of mining and pipeline construction that state wide progressives were against. Many of us have watched in dismay as many actual progressive voters chose to support Walz early in his campaign on the ground that he said he was a true progressive. But over time, Walz’s record has become more widely known, and this early support has recently begun to fall away.

When the news of Parkland shocked this nation, hundreds, possibly thousands, of activist Minnesotans with the DFL (Democratic Party), Indivisible, and other groups, raised their voices against the politicians in Washington who supported guns. Then, over the subsequent few days, those same concerned activist started to realize that their own guy, Tim Walz, was one of the people that had caused this problem, as a full-on NRA and gun lobby supporter.

It was only then, as Walz started to see his position in the top tier of candidates for Governor of Minnesota slip away, that he turned on his NRA keepers. Under pressure from other governor candidates after the Las Vegas mass shooting, Walz said he would give back the money he got from the NRA. Then after more pressure from his opponents after Parkland, he said he would support an assault rifle ban, celebrating this about-face by claiming “the world’s changed.”

The only thing that’s change in this sordid history of mass murder is that Tim Walz is now running for governor. And presumably because he was not pressured to return the other $9,000 he took in gun industry money from groups besides the NRA, he didn’t pledge to give that back. Yet.

Another change that corresponds almost exactly with Walz’s change in heart over guns is a shift in voter preference. According to a Feb 20th Quinnipiac poll,

American voters support stricter gun laws 66 – 31 percent, the highest level of support ever measured by the independent Quinnipiac University National Poll, with 50 – 44 percent support among gun owners and 62 – 35 percent support from white voters with no college degree and 58 – 38 percent support among white men.

Today’s result is up from a negative 47 – 50 percent measure of support in a December 23, 2015, survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll.

One could congratulate Congressman Walz for changing his stance on an issue in deference to his constituents. But in my view, a dozen years of strict adherence to a particular position that is so closely associated with danger to our society is not something a politician is allowed to suddenly walk away from.

Voters will have to decide if this is too little too late.


Here is a Walz campaign ad from an earlier election.

Spread the love

182 thoughts on “Tim Walz Can Not Waltz Back His Pro Gun Political Career

    1. Roger:

      I agree with all that you said.

      I would also point out that everytime banning assault weapons is being proposed, about 750,000 more assault weapons get purchased (at least based on the sales surge data I reviewed).

      I think this is a negative, if the goal is to reduce the number of assault weapons in the USA.

      Because of the Supreme Court stance on the 2nd amendment, none of the bans have a chance of passing.

      After the last ban expired (in 2004) about 8 million assault weapons were purchased in a surge of gun sales.

      Threats of bans just create more gun sales.

      They are counterproductive.

  1. I despise the NSA…. but…

    1) Mass shootings make up a very small percentage of total U.S. gun murders or violence.

    2) About 85% of U.S. mass shootings do NOT involve a so-called assault rifle

    3) There are, supposedly, at least 15 million so-called assault rifles in the U.S. The percentage of them, or their owners, which are ever involved in anything untoward is a rounding error to zero.

    I am getting tired of seeing articles written about the recent mass shooting(s) which talk about so-called assault rifles, then move into statistics which are not really related to them, but are nevertheless applied to them.

    The question here is, as always, what can be done to actually solve this problem. Broad stroke recommendations of banning this or that are likely not productive – if we are going to pass a new law, it has to be Constitutional, or all we are doing is… nothing. Well, actually a lot worse than nothing, – we are giving more impetus to redneck gun nuts, who are one-issue voters, to keep electing Republicans.

    What would be helpful is an informed discussion on what laws might be proposed that would be:

    1) genuinely helpful
    2) not redundant
    3) able to pass Constitutional review
    4) not a Pyrrhic victory considering Karl Rove’s Republican reelection strategy
    5) actually respectful of the 60 million U.S. hunters, target shooters, and gun owners who keep and use guns responsibly. (These people vote, and we need their help on issues like global warming that, forgive me, involve the inexorable death of a lot more people than mass shootings do.)

    I am not even sure if the best strategy is for those of us on the left to actually propose something. It might be a lot more politically expedient to drop the whole thing into the Repub’s lap, and simply ask them every day why THEY haven’t done anything to stop it.

    Because it is unlikely we will be able to anything truly helpful until Democrats have large majorities in every state and national legislature. And this might be a better long-term strategy.

    1. Roger, on your first point, I agree with you, and I address the relative role of mass shootings vs. other gun deaths in the post.

      On your second point, I agree with you. Yes, it is not all about assault rifles. That happens however to be the legislation that has come to bear on the issue over this 12 year period, and since that is a feature of this post, that is what is mentioned. But also note that legislation regarding hand gun locks and other issues is addressed here as well.

      (Also, I quickly add that all of the worst mass shootings recently have actually involvee them.)

      This particular post does not talk about the recent mass shootings then go on to irrelevant statistics. This post is about something else. It is about every detail of a politicians voting record over his entire career, his NRA support over that time, and a backdrop of information about all of the mass shootings, not a selection of them. I also talk about other gun deaths. See this post:

      http://gregladen.com/blog/2018/02/15/gun-control-school-shootings/

      for more about that.

    2. 5) actually respectful of the 60 million U.S. hunters, target shooters, and gun owners who keep and use guns responsibly.

      Just as it is incorrect to conflate assault rifles with stats on, say, handgun deaths, it’s also problematic to try to fold this class of weapon in with hunting and target rifles. While a hunting rifle may be gas operated, it will never require more than a 3-round magazine capacity and target rifles of any merit are invariably bolt action.

    3. “3) able to pass Constitutional review”

      That’s key.

      Legislation banning or otherwise controlling assault rifles won’t run afoul of Heller 2009, which made handgun bans impossible (which did leave in place the constitutionality of waiting periods, age limits, etc). Despite Heller 2009 federal law regarding hand guns are in place but not assault rifles. Even extending federal law regarding hand guns to assault rifles would lead to a longer waiting period and a minimum age of 21 requirement.

      BBD: “While a hunting rifle may be gas operated, it will never require more than a 3-round magazine ”

      Many states have a 5 round limit for deer season and have for a very long time (probably because the infantry rifle used from the 1930s through early Vietnam had 5 round clips). That’s close enough to 3. Much closer than 3 than to 20, 30, or 50.

  2. ” it’s also problematic to try to fold this class of weapon in with hunting and target rifles. ”

    The 60 million gun owners of the U.S. would lilely disagree. Clip size aside – and clip size might well be a reasonable choice for regulation (it was instituted before and I do not remember it being held unconstitutional) – these guns are indeed used by hunters and target shooters all the time. For hunting and target shooting. They are simply semi-automatic rifles like millions of others less military-looking sporting guns.

    I have read a comment by an owner that because the guns are so modular, he simply changed the barrel to another caliber for different situations. Personally, I don’t get it – but there are at least 15 million of them out there. And the one thing that does make them a bit different is the size – they are compact, with shorter barrels. Which, theoretically, would make them more suitable for home protection.

    That fact, and their mass popularity, as I understand the Supreme Court rulings of the past decade, make them more constitutionally protected than, say, some ancient eight foot long duck gun that almost nobody owns.

    1. “these guns are indeed used by hunters”

      Not by that many except maybe for slaughtering so-called varmints.

      But here’s a magazine’s annual list of “best deer rifles”. There’s one assault-rifle style weapon there but it’s longer barreled, takes 0.30 cal rounds (much better range than the smaller round of an AR-15), weighs 20% more than an AR-15, etc. Really meant to be a hunting rifle with the aesthetics of a modern infantry rifle.

      Most of those on the list come with what appear to be 5 round clips, which matches the deer hunting regulations of many states.

      http://www.gameandfishmag.com/guns-shooting/rifles/best-deer-hunting-rifles-of-2016/

      Of course in many places, the most common hunters are waterfowl hunters, who use shotguns, which usually also are regulated regarding number of shells they can hold (hunting isn’t protected by the 2nd amendment, so state hunting departments can make whatever regs they want).

      “They are simply semi-automatic rifles like millions of others less military-looking sporting guns.”

      If this were really true then infantry would still be carrying rifles that look a lot more like those on the “best deer hunting rifle” list rather than the smaller caliber, large capacity magazine weapons capable of a high rate of fire that they do. There would’ve been no need to invent weapons like the AR-15/M-16 or AK-47 in the first place.

    2. Roger

      The 60 million gun owners of the U.S. would lilely disagree. Clip size aside – and clip size might well be a reasonable choice for regulation (it was instituted before and I do not remember it being held unconstitutional) – these guns are indeed used by hunters and target shooters all the time. For hunting and target shooting. They are simply semi-automatic rifles like millions of others less military-looking sporting guns.

      Except (as dhogaza says) these guns aren’t suitable for hunting. They’re usually chambered for .223 and the .223 round is too light for deer and overkill for vermin – a .22LR is all you need for pest control. Or a shotgun. As for target, these things are frankly crap. They are what they are: military assault rifles without burst/auto fire. They’re for killing people. Sure, you can shoot beer cans off the gate and obliterate small mammals with them, but there are more appropriate alternatives.

    3. Roger

      And the one thing that does make them a bit different is the size – they are compact, with shorter barrels. Which, theoretically, would make them more suitable for home protection.

      If a farmer’s double-barrelled shotgun isn’t enough to do the job an assault rifle is unlikely to make any difference. And if I was the bad guy, I’d be more afraid of the shotgun. I can’t really see the special case for home protection – it’s like hunting and target – there are better alternatives. Okay, if it’s a zombie apocalypse, I’d eat my words / brains.

  3. >everytime banning assault weapons is being proposed, about 750,000 more assault weapons get purchased

    Hollywood keeps making movies about a terrorist who is really working for an above top secret agency looking to start a war or arms dealers looking to make money. How about one where a gun manufacturer instigates a school shooting to boost sales?

  4. ““They are simply semi-automatic rifles like millions of others less military-looking sporting guns.”

    If this were really true then infantry would still be carrying rifles that look a lot more like those on the “best deer hunting rifle” list rather than the smaller caliber, large capacity magazine weapons capable of a high rate of fire that they do. There would’ve been no need to invent weapons like the AR-15/M-16 or AK-47 in the first place.”

    The military has a need for highly reliable, easily manufacturable, modularly-constructed rifles that can also be machine guns. These same attributes esxcept for the full-automatic functioning are attractive to many hunter, target shooters, and, yes, mass murderers. But as you point out, traditional hunting rifles will work just fine for killing people – as the Garand versions used in two World Wars will attest.

    So-called assault rifles have the same firing rate as any semi-automatic hunting rifle. The same capability, clip size excepted. Your argument that they are “crap” for accuracy works against banning – better to have mass murderers armed with “crap” weapons.

    Except they are not crap. They are plenty accurate. Read the outdoor magazines – they test and rate them. And the fact that, yes, there ARE alternatives with morphology that we are used to seeing is irrelevant. The question is two-fold:

    1) Can they be banned constitutionally. I have strong doubts myself, but I could be wrong. It is an interesting legal question.

    2) Should they be banned is a complicated question. Think about the political polarization that will result when 15 million guns are banned and their owners go into a voting booth, knowing fully well that only a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of one percent of these guns or gun owners have any complicity whatsoever in school shootings. Karl Rove has multiple sexual fantasies about such an outcome. An outcome not based on facts and reason, but on somewhat hysterical political animosities.

    1. So-called assault rifles have the same firing rate as any semi-automatic hunting rifle. The same capability, clip size excepted. Your argument that they are “crap” for accuracy works against banning – better to have mass murderers armed with “crap” weapons.

      You haven’t addressed the problems with .223 that I mentioned, and I said that for target the AR-15-alikes are crap compared to a bolt action target rifle. And so they are.

      So there is no good argument for paramilitary .223 rifles as hunting weapons and no good argument for them as target rifles either.

      I agree that banning them presents a legal challenge but I don’t agree with the argument mounted by some that they are of any value as hunting or target rifles. They are designed to kill people and the reason they are popular is a mix of ‘hey, military kit, kewl!’ and the mistaken notion that they will outperform a shotgun in a home defence role.

    2. 2) Should they be banned is a complicated question. Think about the political polarization that will result when 15 million guns are banned and their owners go into a voting booth, knowing fully well that only a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of one percent of these guns or gun owners have any complicity whatsoever in school shootings. Karl Rove has multiple sexual fantasies about such an outcome. An outcome not based on facts and reason, but on somewhat hysterical political animosities.

      The problem I have with this is that it is obvious that paramilitary rifles should not be on sale to the general public. They have no recreational application not better served by civilian-design alternatives and given the sheer number of mass shootings where they are the murderer’s weapon of choice, the rationale for a ban on *future* sales is solid.

      It’s clearly not going to be practical to make the ban retrospective and apply it to legally-purchased weapons in the ownership of law-abiding Americans, but enough is enough. Surely we can agree on that given all the killings in recent years?

  5. I wonder if Delta , Enterprise, etc., are going to stop any relationship with Broward county sheriff’s Dept? How about sherrif Dept. defending out children. Responding to calls, that’s right, at least ten calls. Shame on you. Take your badges off and hang your heads, go home. Do not show your faces publicly. Fair weather friends like Delta and the sort don’t want your support anyway. I suppose you have gone to the school district and offered your support and help in training school staff so this doesn’t happen again.

  6. The purpose of the police at the school was not to protect the kids from school shooters, but to protect the bad kids at school from the police. They had a program called PROMISE to have kids sent there instead of jail. This police was to rewrite reports in support of the policy, to prevent arrests. This is why the security tape was on a 30 min delay. Cruz likely had a gun in his backpack before, rewritten by our helpful school assigned police as found with bullets in his backpack, but a warning was sent out not to let him on premises with a backpack.

    1. Wow, the signs of detachment from reality are growing. I’m concerned. Have you considered seeking help?

      Just one little thing: “This is why the security tape was on a 30 min delay. ”

      No, there was a communication failure with the people in the security control room and the police in the other building.

      ‘The Broward County Public Schools issued a statement Thursday saying the “surveillance system definitely has the ability to view the cameras in real time. It also has the ability to view the recorded footage and replay footage from earlier in the day.”’

      Which is how anyone sensible would design a surveillance system.

    2. It’s also possible they were ordered to wait for SWAT. It has been reported that one student saw the officer talking into his radio. Sheriff gave him full retirement and his protecting him with six officers at home.

  7. The purpose of the police at the school was not to protect the kids from school shooters, but to protect the bad kids at school from the police.

    You are really grasping at every imaginary straw possible, but even on the immensely small chance you’re right: they are still armed police. If they know there is an attack they shouldn’t wait outside.

    1. Agreed. But I suspect that they were the weaker ones assigned for the ‘safer’ task.

      Sheriff Scott Israel
      “What I’m asking the law makers to give police all over this country is more power.”
      He had previously compared himself to Mandela, Gandhi, and Lincoln and said
      Lions do not care about sheep.

    2. No, not at all.

      The armed school officer never entered. The first three Broward Country sheriffs who arrived (all armed, responding to calls about a shooting in progress) did not enter.

      When Coral City officers, and more Broward County officers arrived, they were “stunned and furious” that the other officers had not gone into the school. Whether the shooting was still in progress or not, they should have gone in. You are simply making up bullshit post-hoc excuses.

      The resentment among Coral Springs officials toward Broward County officials about what they perceived to be a dereliction of duty may have reached a boiling point at a vigil the night of February 15, where, in front of dozens of others, Coral Springs City Manager Mike Goodrum confronted Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel. A source familiar with the conversation tells CNN that Goodrum was upset that the Broward deputies had remained outside the school while kids inside could have been bleeding out, among other reasons.

    3. It’s not an excuse. I agree they should have gone in. My suspicion is that the reason they did not go in, were cowering, was because they are weaker ones(which is a given) assigned to that area.

    4. The school officer now says he thought the shooting was done, so he didn’t go in. He doesn’t explain why he didn’t go in to see if he could give aid to the wounded.

      There is no good explanation for this — even his superior has said he was disappointed with him.

      Israel said last week that he’d suspended Peterson after seeing video footage that captured Peterson’s response, hearing witness accounts and getting a statement from the officer. Peterson then resigned, Israel said.

      The article that gave that description says Peterson resigned after he was informed there would be an internal affairs investigation of his actions.

      Told to wait for Swat? No, just another attempt to give a post hoc justification for what he did.

    5. Peterson didn’t say anything about SWAT. That is my suggestion. Sheriff has sent out e-mail insisting department people must support him. Someone leaked it, suggesting they don’t support him. His statement about lion and sheep and comparing himself to Gandhi doesn’t look good.

  8. I’m surprised that no one has mentioned how little money, just $5000, the NRA to contribute to Tim Walz in order to buy his vote for all his years in Congress. I’ll bet his electioneering propaganda portrays him as a churchgoer too. Have politicians always been so easily corrupted as this or am I just catching on?

    I don’t believe that the majority of NRA members are of the same opinions as their leadership. I remember that after the 2012 shooting, 75% of respondents in a poll agreed that better gun regulation was needed — compared to 90% of so of the general public and seemingly 0% of Wayne LaPierre and his coterie. I don’t remember if I ever knew what survey it was.

    1. I’m surprised that no one has mentioned how little money, just $5000, the NRA to contribute to Tim Walz in order to buy his vote for all his years in Congress. I’ll bet his electioneering propaganda portrays him as a churchgoer too. Have politicians always been so easily corrupted as this or am I just catching on?

      I don’t believe that the majority of NRA members are of the same opinions as their leadership. I remember that after the 2012 shooting, 75% of respondents in a poll agreed that better gun regulation was needed — compared to 90% of so of the general public and seemingly 0% of Wayne LaPierre and his coterie. I don’t remember if I ever knew what survey it was.

      Addendum: Sorry, I forgot to total the NRA contributions mentioned in the article. It still doesn’t amount to very much money compared to the money the arms manufacturers pull in from all the gun enthusiasts.

    2. I’m surprised that no one has mentioned how little money, just $5000, the NRA to contribute to Tim Walz in order to buy his vote for all his years in Congress.

      Tangential: look at the amounts of money the tech industry paid congressmen and senators to buy their support and votes. It’s amazing how little it costs to get one of those clowns to sell their last bit of integrity.

    3. Everybody gets this amount. It is a contract, a retainer. If the candidate does not live up to expectations, the NRA turns on them. The amount of money given is not relevant. It simply demonstrates, symbolically, the faustian deal that has been made.

    1. When you have learned the difference between a hand-built bolt-action target rifle and a gas operated semiauto paramilitary weapon built to mass production tolerances, let me know.

  9. BBD claims,

    “The problem I have with this is that it is obvious that paramilitary rifles should not be on sale to the general public. They have no recreational application not better served by civilian-design alternatives …”

    Nonsense.

    The AR platform utterly dominates the world of 3-gun, the fastest growing segment of competition shooting.

    https://www.range365.com/basics-3-gun-shooting#page-2

    1. 3-gun is speed-plinking for people pretending to be soldiers. Of course the AR-15-alikes dominate. Rate of fire plus the obvious fact that the kind of people who play at soldiers buy paramilitary kit for their games.

      Back in the grown-up world where you either hunt or aim for excellence at target, there is – as I said – no role for paramilitary weapons.

    2. Nonsense.

      The AR platform utterly dominates the world of 3-gun, the fastest growing segment of competition shooting.

      Yes, encouraging such activities with civilians as hobbies is nonsense, insane effing nonsense, taken up by the clinically insane.

      The picture to which this caption “This JP-15 rifle in .223 made all this empty brass. Practice is the only way to become good at 3-gun” was appended is a demonstration of wasteful insanity.

    3. Yup.

      For anyone as yet unconvinced that 3-Gun is nothing more than playing at solders, here’s pix: Exhibit A and Exhibit B.

      The idea that this nonsense provides a justification for the sale of paramilitary weapons to the general public is as stupid as it is circular in its reasoning.

    1. Watch someone learn to make hits at 1 mile with an 18? gas gun.

      Nice try.

      1 I would not waste any money on a DVD set instructing in gun use, with probably a cut going to the NRA.

      2. The product is discontinued.

      3. The thought that anybody purchasing such a weapon would be able to use this as a training aid whilst practising in their backyard (I figure many backyards in the US would be rather larger than the average here in the UK) is farcical and abhorrent. Which latter term describes your defence of these practices to a tee.

  10. BBD,

    “3-gun is speed-plinking for people pretending to be soldiers.”

    Then why does the Army send its Marksmanship Unit around the country to participate in 3-gun matches?

    1. To advertise the military to those low IQ clowns dipshit. Those soldiers didn’t become marksmen playing games.

    2. Then why does the Army send its Marksmanship Unit around the country to participate in 3-gun matches?

      As I said, 3-Gun is playing at soldiers. The fact that the real ones sometimes join in demonstrates my point. Your original argument was self-defeating – these are paramilitary games concocted to provide a role for paramilitary weapons. They don’t provide a justification for public ownership. If you really cannot see the circular ‘reasoning’ you used then I don’t suppose I can explain it to you. It’d be like talking to the cat.

    3. Then why does the Army send its Marksmanship Unit around the country to participate in 3-gun matches?

      Darned if I know after watching that. That clip was revealing, not in a way that you should be proud of. Sheesh, that guy would have been so dead long before he got to the second test section. Then there is that fun thing with a dummy, that is so not the way to carry a real body.

      Seriously, it was on a par with an episode of Monty Python!

  11. Whats the rationale here?
    Some people have a hobby where they pretend to be soldiers?
    So in order to pursue their hobby, naturally they need the gear to do it?
    And that legitimizes production and sale of said gear?

    Christ its a pathetic specimen of a thing.

    Li D
    Australia.

  12. “. Despite Heller 2009 federal law regarding hand guns are in place but not assault rifles.”

    Heller was about handguns. There are dozens of Supreme Court cases involving rifles, etc. Heller is only one of three recent SC rulings. Whether so-called assault rifles can be banned constitutionally is a topic of interesting speculation, but as far as I know, they are at least as protected as any other rifle.

    Evidently, there are assault rifle bans in several states on the books now for years. The question is whether those bans are constitutional according to the Supreme Court.

    And there is another question – is pushing for a ban worth it? We might be able to ban so-called assault rifles on a national level. It will do almost zero to stop school shootings. Heck, it will do very little to stop school shootings with so-called assault weapons. But it will go a very long way toward keeping Republicans in office. And a long way to strengthening and even hardening the position(s) of the NRA.

    I believe it would be the Pyrrhic victory to end all Pyrrhic victories. With the survival of civilization as we know it due to global warming on the table, we need to pick our battles very wisely.

  13. “For anyone as yet unconvinced that 3-Gun is nothing more than playing at solders…”

    “3-gun looks like cosplay for ammosexuals.”

    Um no. 3-gun is pistol, rifle and shotgun. While shotguns are part of the military’s inventory, they are in no way a standard weapon. So if your intention is to “play soldier” why would you do so with a firearm that the vast majority of soldiers do not use?

    BBD posts two pictures that support his nonsense. But if you enter ‘3-gun’ and search Google images you’ll see that most competitors are wearing brightly patterned, polo style pullovers. Does that look military to you?

    The Army Marksmanship Unit competes in bright yellow. Does that look like “playing soldier”, especially given the fact that they are actual soldiers? Where’s the webbing and the MOLLE?

    On the other hand airsoft **IS** cosplay. Which is why there is no Army Airsoft Unit.

  14. Lionel A,

    I didn’t expect anyone to buy the DVD. The point is that it was filmed at a real school in Texas where you can learn to hit targets at a mile with an AR style rifle. Demonstrating that BBD’s claim that the AR is “crap” at accuracy was in fact a “crap” statement.

    Do you really expect people to practice long range shooting in their backyards? Do you scuba dive in your bathtub?

  15. “They don’t provide a justification for public ownership.”

    Um, I never said that. I was responding to your claim that the AR platform was “crap” at accuracy and there were better civilian alternatives.

    Of course, you didn’t actually say what alternatives other than a hand-built bolt gun. So I guess that means that you’re in favor of gun rights, but only for the rich?

  16. Lionel A,

    “Sheesh, that guy would have been so dead long before he got to the second test section.”

    That’s because it’s **NOT** a military simulation. BBD is the one trying to make that claim.

    It’s a shooting sports event that emphasizes quick decision-making and rapid sight acquisition. It therefore can assist greatly in someone becoming a better combat shooter, but it’s not meant to be “playing soldier” as BBD claims.

    It would be nice if I didn’t have to argue with one person saying X and another person saying NOT X.

  17. Um no. 3-gun is pistol, rifle and shotgun. While shotguns are part of the military’s inventory, they are in no way a standard weapon. So if your intention is to “play soldier” why would you do so with a firearm that the vast majority of soldiers do not use?

    Shotguns are issued to infantry, USMC, Special Forces and US Coast Guard. While not ubiquitous, they are still widely used and you are being disingenuous.

    BBD posts two pictures that support his nonsense.

    From your own link. Fail.

    But if you enter ‘3-gun’ and search Google images you’ll see that most competitors are wearing brightly patterned, polo style pullovers. Does that look military to you?

    Safety wear, FFS. 3-Gun is still playing at soldiers (aka ‘combat marksmanship’, ‘tactical gunnery’ etc.). You are being disingenuous again. Proof, incidentally, that you cannot defend your position without resorting to dishonesty.

    Demonstrating that BBD’s claim that the AR is “crap” at accuracy was in fact a “crap” statement.

    Still you pretend that hitting a target and serious competition target shooting are the same. Either you don’t know what you are talking about or you are being dishonest again. Only a fool – or a liar – would claim that a mass-produced assault weapon can match a target rifle for accuracy. So know-nothing, liar or idiot. You pick.

    Um, I never said that. I was responding to your claim that the AR platform was “crap” at accuracy and there were better civilian alternatives.

    They are crap compared to a target rifle and only a know-nothing, liar or idiot would claim otherwise. See above.

    It’s a shooting sports event that emphasizes quick decision-making and rapid sight acquisition. It therefore can assist greatly in someone becoming a better combat shooter

    AKA playing at soldiers.

    but it’s not meant to be “playing soldier” as BBD claims.

    As BBD correctly observes. You can’t argue your way out of this mess. Picking 3-Gun as a justification for the sale of assault rifles was idiotically self-defeating. But like every other Internet muppet you double down instead of dropping it.

    You are talking too much BTW. It’s a waste of others’ time dealing with this spew of rubbish. Be dishonest succinctly please.

    1. Shotguns are commonly deployed in police cruisers. This kind of training is typical for police as well as military, which doesn’t strengthen “locus”‘s argument a bit.

  18. Do you really expect people to practice long range shooting in their backyards? Do you scuba dive in your bathtub?

    Aha! The literal interpreter who does not grasp nuance. I was using the term figuratively from considering that backyards in the US would include areas the size of football stadiums and up, hence my allusion to size .

    That’s because it’s **NOT** a military simulation. BBD is the one trying to make that claim.

    It’s a shooting sports event that emphasizes quick decision-making and rapid sight acquisition.

    So it not being a military style simulation makes the whole exercise rather futile sending combat troops to take part.

    Of course what it does do is, by your own admission, ’emphasizes quick decision-making and rapid sight acquisition’, just what a dude with a gun and a grudge needs to be able to create as much carnage as possible when in a school where the targets don’t shoot back!

    But you keep digging this sewer of a hole for yourself.

  19. Anti-arthritis exercises. Feb 27, 2018.
    So currently we are sacrificing some fraction of the 30,000 people killed by guns each year to the perceived need of gun lovers, gun manufacturers and gun terrorists as I like to call them, to make themselves feel more secure. We are currently spending billions of dollars per year on insurance premiums to cover the cost of living in a society where hundreds of thousands of people are impacted by guns, either lethally, or by being physically or mentally mutilated by the bullet, or by having to live with the consequences of this having happened to a loved one . All this to support the bad habits of our looney tune gun addicts.

    Our education itself is being impacted, with time having to be taken out from useful education time to perform bend over active shooter drills and , now, time being taken to wrest control of the government back from the NRA gun terrorists.

    All the gun lovers out there need to realize that having a gun does not make one a hero. It does not make you respected. It might make you feared, but it does not make you admired. To the contrary, your NRA sticker of concealed carry decal just makes you look like someone who is, basically, an idiot, someone who should be avoided because they are fucking obsessed with one small poorly written part of the constitution. and with the ability to live in the past century. Nearly any idiot can currently obtain a gun and then brag about it. It does not take great skill to pull a trigger. It does not make one virile or tough to be able to talk about the relative murderous merits of different weapons- any fool can google it or buy a gun magazine.

    Guns amplify the power of people to threaten or kill other people. However, they do not make a person more brave, more wise, more sensible, more aware, or more sensitive to reality. Currently, we are letting many guns fall into the hands of criminals and mental incompetents at mortifying rates, and we are stupid to keep letting this happen. Currently we are letting guns fall into the hands of people with reptilian sensibilities. And we are failing to modify an ambiguous and lethally stupid constitutional amendment that aides and abets this problem. If we don’t clear up our second amendment, we are not using our constitution correctly. It is and was meant to be modified as time went by.

    The loopholes all need to be closed.
    Gun licensing and annual mental checkups to hold a gun license would bring our gun deaths down by a very large fraction. Illegal possession of firearms should be punished more severely, as should commission of a crime using a gun. Tens of thousands of people would not have to suffer the loss of life, limb, or loved ones if we had intelligent gun laws. Of course, the suffering of millions of people doesn’t matter one bit to gun manufacturers, gun addicts, gun lovers, and gun terrorists. the suffering of others is of absolutely no concern to sociopaths, is it.

    1. And we are failing to modify an ambiguous and lethally stupid constitutional amendment that aides and abets this problem.

      The fact is, it’s not really ambiguous at all. The right of gun ownership is granted for the purpose of raising self-equipped militias to protect the security of the state.

      Since state militias are now equipped by the state (and voluntary rather than levied) the 2nd A no longer applies. Therefore it can no longer be used as justification for generalised gun ownership by US citizens. This is very clear to any unbiased outside observer. The extent to which vested interest and rightwing ideology has distorted the legislature is breathtaking.

    2. BBD:

      It actually is a bit more ambiguous than you make it seem.

      You are focused on the state in your analysis.

      The full text of the 2nd amendment reads:

      “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.”

      The Supreme Court focused on “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” when it decided that the 2nd amendment was an individual right and not a militia right.

      The way they read it, the right applies to every citizen (the people), whether they are in a militia or not. The purpose was to have “the people” having lots of guns, which they could keep and bear, and one reason for the people to have guns was because they would occasionally be called up for the state militia.

      They could have written it to make it much clearer that the guns would be controlled by the state, keep under lock and key and doled out to “the people” who were called up for the militia – but they didn’t write it that way.

      Instead “the people” have the right to keep and bear arms.

      Some people read it and focus on “the people” and some people read it and focus on the militia and the free state.

  20. The way they read it, the right applies to every citizen (the people), whether they are in a militia or not.

    Which it obviously does not. The right is accorded to the people (white males only at the time of writing, let us not forget) only and specifically so that they may be enrolled in a militia.

    Since this is profoundly anachronistic now, the 2nd A cannot be used as a blanket justification for peddling weapons to the entire US adult population.

    * * *

    It’s funny (well not really) how those who rant the loudest about freeeedom and democracy in the USA are the most prone to overlooking just how badly it has been corrupted by vested interest and ideology.

    1. Zero ambiguity in this:

      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.

      Which begs the question: what could possibly have caused the SC to misinterpret it so completely?

      One should always ask: cui bono.

    2. Im a little bit gobsmacked by ANY ambiguity in what seems to be really important law making.
      By all means write a nice simple few words and call it an amendment thingie.
      But for something of such importance,
      clarify the fuck out of it with say, an annex of guidance, of at least 10 pages putting in plain words the intentions. And another 10 pages at a minimum explaining what it dosnt mean, for those that may misinterpret it.
      Is that so bloody hard for lawmakers?
      I woulda thought it would be completely rational, if not obligitory, diligence.

      Li D
      Australia.

    3. The 2nd A has been grotesquely misinterpreted, RickA.

      Your feeble attempt to justify it above simply underlines the fact that there is NOTHING there justifying a universal right to gun ownership in the modern era.

      So why was the 2nd A twisted out of all recognition? Who stood to benefit the most?

      We know the answers but conservatives prefer to lie about this rather than admit that yes, they and their sponsors in the gun industry fucked US legislation for profit.

      Proud of your wretched little part in all this?

    4. BBD:

      Yes – I am proud to provide my opinion to the posters here about the second amendment, its interpretation and the state of the law on the second amendment.

      I think it is important for the readers here to know that not everybody agrees with your analysis.

      I am proud to have obtained a permit to carry in Minnesota and therefore to have the ability to exercise my second amendment right.

      I suspect that in the future, permits to carry will not even be required, as they may be found to constitute an infringement on the right to bear arms (why do I need a permit to carry?).

      I am proud to have suggested a list of potential gun control measures which do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

      I am proud to have suggested the best way to get those measures enacted.

      I am proud to have pointed out the measures which I think infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

      And I am especially proud of having keep the debate polite and on point, without name calling or casting aspersions on the other posters involved in the debate.

      I am also proud to have suggested several ways to help students and teachers to defend themselves against the school shooter phenomenon, which seems likely to continue.

      I will continue to engage in debate and comment about the second amendment in the future.

    5. And proud to repeatedly dodge the question. No militia levy = no generalised right to keep and bear. So the clear meaning of the 2nd A has been greatly altered by the strange interpretations of rightwing judges.

      Now, who benefits from this blatant misrepresentation of the original?

  21. I will continue to engage in debate and comment about the second amendment in the future.

    Seeing as you are so stubbornly not seeing the point of arguments for a rewire of the second amendment then don’t bother for you will only be offering your fixed, archaic, inhuman and irresponsible opinion. In other words too tedious to pay you any further attention.

    With that I will let you talk with yourself.

    1. Lionel:

      I have always said that the second amendment could be further amended.

      I just point out how to do it and how hard it actually would be, and provide my opinion that I just don’t see it happening.

      Go ahead and rewrite the second amendment.

      I am not stopping you.

    2. I have always said that the second amendment could be further amended.

      And yet again you pull your sly rhetorical trick of shifting the focus away from problem of rightwing judges interpreting (*not* amending) the 2nd A. You pretend that the difficulty in amending it is the roadblock to change. But no amendment is necessary. Just a return to the original and very clear meaning of the 2nd A. The problem is the rightwing ‘interpretation’ of the original, *not* the original itself.

      Now, who benefits from this systematic rightwing attack on the Constitution?

  22. BBD,

    “While shotguns are part of the military’s inventory, they are in no way a standard weapon.”

    What word in that sentence do you not understand?

    1. They are a standard weapon. The word ‘standard’ – which you don’t understand – doesn’t mean ‘issued to everyone’; it means issued without special process. Which it is. Trollish nitpickery to divert from fact that you are, yet again, wrong.

      Shotguns are issued to USMC, US Special Forces, US Infantry (since WW1, learn you history), US Coast Guard and doubtless more. See Mossberg 500; Benelli M1014.

      Peeps playing at soldiers – especially Special Forces – will include a military-style shotgun alongside an assault rifle and military-style handgun. And there you have it: 3-Gun.

  23. BBD,

    “Still you pretend that hitting a target and serious competition target shooting are the same.”

    Huh? You’re saying that competition target shooting **doesn’t ** involve hitting a target?

    Really?

    1. Yes you did:

      BBD claims,

      “The problem I have with this is that it is obvious that paramilitary rifles should not be on sale to the general public. They have no recreational application not better served by civilian-design alternatives …”

      Nonsense.

      The AR platform utterly dominates the world of 3-gun, the fastest growing segment of competition shooting.

  24. Lionel A,

    “Of course what it does do is, by your own admission, ’emphasizes quick decision-making and rapid sight acquisition’, just what a dude with a gun and a grudge needs to be able to create as much carnage as possible when in a school where the targets don’t shoot back!”

    Right. Those attributes are only useful to a school shooter. Because we’d want the police entering the building to have slooooooooooowwwwww decision-making and take long, long , long time to acquire the bad guy in their sights.

  25. Dean,

    “Whatvreshatvreall training with real purpose can do. Not the kid’s game you think requires talent.”

    The AMU shooter in that video, Daniel Horner, was a national champion at “the kid’s game” BEFORE he was recruited.

    https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2014/5/11/daniel-the-great/

    As was K.C. Eusebio,

    https://sdi.edu/blog/shooter-spotlight-kc-eusebio/

    As was Travis Tomassie,

    https://www.ssusa.org/articles/2016/5/10/remington-arms-team-captain-travis-tomasie/

    Your claim of “real training” with “real purpose” is just ignorant nonsense.

  26. So the anti-gunners here have all expressed their disdain for civilian shooting competitions like 3-gun.

    BBD: it’s “playing”
    Lionel A: “episode of Monty Python”
    Dean: “…didn’t become marksmen playing games”

    Funny, this gentleman says the EXACT OPPOSITE. He says the military can “learn a lot from civilians”. He says that competitive shooting was an “awakening” and “humbling”.

    But Master Sgt. Scott Satterlee is only a veteran of the Army Special Forces who has fought in Iraq and Afghanistan so what does he know, right?

    https://medium.com/war-is-boring/top-army-marksman-explains-why-gun-nuts-shoot-better-469f8dfd917f

    1. So the anti-gunners here have all expressed their disdain for civilian shooting competitions like 3-gun.

      No, I pointed out that your argument that 3-Gun provides a rationale for the sale of assault weapons to the general public is circular, self-serving nonsense. The fact that you now dishonestly deny having made that argument proves my point.

    2. He says that competitive shooting

      You’ve already painted yourself to be a massive ass. You don’t need to buy more latex flat to touch up that job.

      the little plink plink game is not competitive shooting.

    1. You are now repeating the same diversionary bollocks you used on other threads, complete with link to the same irrelevant rubbish source. If you don’t understand the argument, stop posting.

      For the last time: the issue here is not individuality, it is the purpose for which the right to keep and bear is accorded. See upthread. Read harder.

  27. There is a requirement that specialists are well trained.
    Organizations that specialize facilitate training so the specialist work can be done, utterly
    independant of hobbiests.
    You be real proper muppet and cockhead too.

    Li D
    Australia.

  28. Right. Those attributes are only useful to a school shooter.

    I never implied that let alone wrote anything that suggested that, my words were by way of example and specifically on the situation that confronted the students at a school not long ago which has brought on this push back against NRA stupidity and by extension your own. Now I don’t think that you are really stupid but acting that way in order to to satisfy your masters.

    1. Did you forget already what you said?

      “Of course what it does do is, by your own admission, ’emphasizes quick decision-making and rapid sight acquisition’, just what a dude with a gun and a grudge needs to be able to create as much carnage as possible when in a school where the targets don’t shoot back!”

  29. But Master Sgt. Scott Satterlee is only a veteran of the Army Special Forces who has fought in Iraq and Afghanistan so what does he know, right?

    I would not be surprised if that Master Sgt. was only toeing the line that the NRA or other handlers required, using whatever inducements. If he is really any good at his job he would really know different. If he does not then it is a good thing he is a veteran and no longer putting other lives at risk by using Rambo tactics in hostile zones.

    You really are a long way into the minefield of special pleading here. Every time you make a move you blow something off, with logic and humanity being early casualties.

    1. “I would not be surprised if that Master Sgt. was only toeing the line that the NRA or other handlers required, using whatever inducements.”

      What other handlers? What inducements?

      Sgt Satterlee didn’t say a single word about gun control. All he said was that civilian practical shooting competitions have been more innovative in their design of targets and courses of fire and that the military could learn from that.

      And immediately you start screaming about payoffs and conspiracies.

      You sound like Alex Jones.

    2. “…t is a good thing he is a veteran and no longer putting other lives at risk by using Rambo tactics in hostile zones.”

      And apparently Lionel A doesn’t have enough education to realize that ‘veteran’ means ‘experienced’, not necessarily ‘former’ or retired’.

    3. “If he is really any good at his job he would really know different.”

      Holy Cow! You’re claiming to know more about practical shooting than a combat veteran of the Army Special Forces.

      YOU MUST BE FLIPPIN’ EPIC !!!!!!!!!!

      By all means, don’t leave us in suspense. Please tell us about your training and experiences that made you into such a super-duper commando.

      We can’t wait!!!!!!!!

  30. BBD says “But no amendment is necessary. Just a return to the original and very clear meaning of the 2nd A.”

    Well that is a relief. How are you going to accomplish that?

    Under your theory, all you need to do is pay the Congress enough money and you can change the Supreme Court interpretation.

    Or maybe your theory is you need to pay enough money to Congress to put the right people on the Supreme Court, so they fix the interpretation for you.

    Or do you think the Republicans are directly bribing the Supreme Court?

    I am not really sure what your theory is, because it smacks of conspiratorial ideation, and should probably be studied by Lewendowsky.

    It really doesn’t matter what your theory is, and here is why.

    The Supreme Court decides how to interpret the constitution.

    Not you.

    So in a dispute over whether the Supreme Court’s interpretation is correct, or your interpretation is correct, you lose.

    So you either need to win enough elections to the Senate to get liberal Supreme Court justices put onto the Supreme Court, faster than the existing liberal judges die off or retire – OR

    you need to amend the constitution.

    Under no scenario is your belief that your interpretation is the correct one going to change anything.

    I happen to disagree with your interpretation, which doesn’t really matter, except that my interpretation is actually the official Supreme Court interpretation, and so that is the one which counts.

    That is why all the noise about banning guns is really a waste of time.

    But I am happy to let it play out and see what happens.

    Meanwhile, millions more of the AR15 and other assault weapons will be sold, while under threat of banning.

    I think this is counterproductive – but nobody cares what I think.

    It would smarter to focus on background checks, mental health, age, bump stocks, silencers, and other things which do not infringe on the individual right to keep and bear arms.

    And I am not even that sure about the age idea.

    I bet we will see a challenge to laws restricting gun purchases to 21 and over, so we will probably see some legal analysis about that issue.

    1. Reams of diversionary blather again.

      Just answer the question I keep asking:

      Who benefits from the weird rightwing interpretation of the 2nd A?

    2. BBD:

      I assume you think the gun companies somehow benefit – right?

      The evil profit.

      How do gun companies benefit?

      They sell more guns when bans are threatened.

      Their sales dropped when Trump was elected.

      But more importantly – What weird rightwing interpretation?

      Even if everybody agreed that the current Supreme Court interpretation is weird (which I don’t concede) – I would answer (if I had to accept the weird premise of your assertion) that “the people” benefit.

      The founders wanted “the people” to be able to keep and bear arms.

      And they can.

    3. I would answer (if I had to accept the weird premise of your assertion) that “the people” benefit.

      How? Lots of them keep getting shot. That’s not a benefit. Check with their families.

      But more importantly – What weird rightwing interpretation?

      The one that took a clear statement that the right to keep and bear was accorded specifically for the purpose of levying a self-equipped militia and turned it into a right for gun manufacturers to sell pretty much anybody pretty much anything even though nobody was going to be in a militia. Except those who volunteered for it and would be equipped by the state itself.

      That weird rightwing ‘interpretation’. The one you pretend wasn’t weird even though it fundamentally altered the clearly stated meaning of the original 2nd A in a weird way which only benefits the gun industry. A fact that you are choking audibly on.

      Just answer the question. Who benefited from the weird reinterpretation of the 2nd A? Not the pile of dead Americans or their relatives, obviously. Who made millions of dollars profit out of this?

      Who?

      Answer the question. Just tell the truth.

      Coz if you aren’t telling the truth, you must be being dishonest.

      So, who benefited?

    4. BBD:

      I am having a hard time with your question because I don’t understand it.

      Your question presupposes that no gun would have been sold but for the 2nd amendment.

      I don’t think that is correct.

      So maybe you are only talking about AR15 type guns, and not hunting guns or handguns (I really don’t know what you are thinking).

      I still don’t see the benefit.

      The AR15 was banned from 1994 to 2004, but when the law expired over 8 million were sold.

      I imagine that all the pent up demand was simply supplied after the ban expired – so at most it merely deferred the purchase of AR15’s until after the ban expired.

      So the total number of AR15 type guns was sold, with the guns sales after the ban catching up with the dearth during the ban.

      There is no new assault ban.

      So anybody who wants an AR15 can buy one now.

      So I really don’t understand your question.

      Nobody benefits from the “weird” court interpretation because there is no assault weapon ban nationally.

      Nobody is proposing to ban hunting guns or handguns – so all those sales would happen anyway.

      Sales of “assault” guns will go through the roof because of the threatened ban (gun companies will certainly benefit from that).

      Although again, maybe that is merely accelerating gun purchases which would have happened over more time later?

      I don’t know.

      Anyway – I don’t really understand your question, or the premise behind it.

      Maybe you are assuming that but for the second amendment, all guns would have been banned from 1789 until present?

      The Tommy gun manufacturer has lost out on a lot of sales – I will agree with that.

      I am not sure that over the long term, any gun company has lost out on any sales of semi-automatic handguns or long guns.

      But please call feel free to call me a liar.

    5. I am having a hard time with your question because I don’t understand it.

      You lying, worthless piece of shit.

  31. Oh – I have one more idea that should be looked at.

    As I understand it, Cruz had 10 long guns.

    I think he purchased them all legally, meaning he filled out the background check paperwork 10 times.

    All that paperwork goes to the ATF (I think), so they should be able to get a count on the number of firearms each individual is legally buying.

    If a young male legally buys 10 guns, maybe that person should be referred to local law enforcement so they can do a bit more research.

    It is one thing if a person posts on social media that they want to be a school shooter, and they own no firearms.

    It is another thing when the person who says that on social media has acquired 10 guns over the span of a couple years, and they fit the profile of a school shooter.

    Just a thought – put a counter on the Federal background check and use it.

    I don’t think that infringes on a person’s right to keep and bear arms.

    It is really part of the background check discussion, and investigating the mental health of the person acquiring the guns.

    That might have helped in the current situation.

    Or given the number of red flags missed – maybe not.

    Still it couldn’t hurt to at least look at something like a counter on the number of guns acquired over a short period of time to enhance the background check somehow.

    Expelled, run in’s with the law, threats of harm to others and owning 10 weapons, along with threats to be a school shooter could even trigger the new type of law where you get a restraining order on the 10 weapons.

    Something to think about.

    1. Good God what a lot of diversionary blather you are spewing out.

      Just answer the question:

      Who benefits from the weird rightwing ‘interpretation’ of the 2nd A?

    2. To avoid dishonesty, you must truthfully answer who (demonstrably) benefited.

      You haven’t done that yet.

      So, come on. Or we will think badly of you for being dishonest again.

    3. Rick, the background check is for verification only. Keeping a record of sales is not allowed, to prevent the formation of a gun registry. So unless Cruz bought his guns in a short period of time, this would not work.
      On the other hand, if Broward hadn’t adopted the PROMISE program, Cruz would have been arredted instead of diverted, and his request to buy a gun would have been denied.

    4. MikeN:

      Good point.

      Under my suggestion than, they would need to modify the law to keep the records of the sales, associate each sale with the identification (drivers license #, social security # or whatever) and then set up the counter function.

      I don’t know if such a law will pass – but it doesn’t seem to me that it would violate the second amendment.

      Even a full blown register of all going forward gun purchases doesn’t impact on the right to keep and bear arms.

      I would not be against that, if that type of counter could be used to help spot people like Cruz.

  32. The founders wanted “the people” to be able to keep and bear arms.

    For a single, clearly-defined reason.

    What was that reason?

    Here’s the text to help you answer correctly:

    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.

    So, what was the reason that the Founders granted the right to keep and bear arms to white males?

    Answer the question. All this evasive bullshitting just has to stop or you will be written of as dishonest yet again.

  33. Dick’s Sporting Goods is going to get sued for age discrimination for not selling guns to anyone under the age of 21, without the cover of a state law banning such sales.

    I predict they will be retracting that bit of policy in very short order.

    Dumb.

    The decision not to sell assault weapons is ok, as is the decision not to sell large capacity magazines – that is their choice and doesn’t discriminate against anybody based on their age (or sex or race or religion), so I predict they will keep those policies and just dump the age policy.

    1. I’ve never seen guns for sale at Dick’s Sporting Goods to begin with. I think this is just an attempt at getting praise from liberals.

  34. Who benefits from interpretation of 2nd amendment? For starters, Mr Heller who sued to own a handgun.
    Tens of millions more gun owners.

    1. There’s no quantifiable benefit to them at all.

      But the profits from tens (oh, surely hundreds) of millions of gun sales. Now that’s a quantifiable benefit and no mistake.

      But neither you, nor RickA, nor Locus are honest enough to admit this simple, self-evident fact.

      Which is interesting, isn’t it?

  35. What well regulated militia did the Parkland gun lover/murderer belong to? White nationalist? Nazi? Watching gun lovers twist themselves into knots trying to defend the second amendment would be an amusing pastime if so many people weren’t killed, crippled, and maimed by guns every year.

    Did the founders mean for arms to be used against other citizens, or against other nations? Did the founders foresee a weapon so powerful that it could destroy the internal organs and bodies of dozens of children in minutes? Perhaps it is time to evaluate what the current needs are for guns in the US, and to see if weapons that turn human beings into bloody piles of human pulp have a place in a civilized society.

    A couple of other points I would like to make. Guns do not make people more virile .

    Also, this. What we are doing here is preoccupying ourselves taking side on the political struggle for plutocratic dominance ( disguised as a debate about arms ). The Russians, meanwhile, are successfully undermining our democracy with weapons far more powerful than your adolescent wet dream AR-15. They are skillfully using propaganda, misinformation, bots, trolls, and cyber B&E to nudge the direction of our discussions in whatever direction is best for Russia. The fact that they have been able to channel money into the NRA , along with the presence of Ted Nugent on their board of directors, makes the NRA highly suspect in terms of any supposed patriotism. Except in the minds of idiots.

    And another thing. How many AR-15’s or other similar weapons does one need to own to defend oneself against the government if the government decides to take your little paranoid pity party apart? The belief that your fellow citizens are plotting to take your life, and that possessing an AR-15 will significantly prolong or improve the quality of your life if they all decide to take you down, is not healthy thinking. What it is is a combination of paranoid and delusional ideation, and would dissuade most sane people from letting you own a gun. Sacrificing the lives of some fraction of 35,000 Americans per year, crippling tens of thousands more, and forcing hundreds of thousands of lives into sorrow, despair, and mental illness due to loss of love ones and loss of physical and mental health, just so gun lovers with minds that are some combination of delusional, paranoid, and immature can cuddle up to a murderous toy is probably not what the founders had in mind.

    Oh yeah, and did I mention that one of the contributors to our high health care costs is all the money spent rebuilding bodies and minds wrecked by the gun lovers love objects. Shooters, gun sellers, gun manufacturers, and ammo manufacturers should have to pay a tax to cover the cost of every medical procedure or therapy that has to be performed to fix the damage that results from misuse of their love objects. Gun Insurance. Gun Licenses. Gun registration. Tougher penalties for the possession of illegal weapons. These changes are all necessary if we want to return to a more civilized existence.

  36. BBD,

    “No, I pointed out that your argument that 3-Gun provides a rationale for the sale of assault weapons to the general public is circular, self-serving nonsense.”

    Never said that.

    1. BBD said the AR-15 is “crap” for accuracy.
    2. I said AR-15s dominate civilian practical shooting.
    3. BBD said that civilian practical shooting is “playing”.
    4. I pointed out that the military has been adopting civilian practical shooting techniques.

    That’s it.

    Please stop lying.

    1. Never said that.

      Oh yes you did:

      BBD claims,

      “The problem I have with this is that it is obvious that paramilitary rifles should not be on sale to the general public. They have no recreational application not better served by civilian-design alternatives …”

      Nonsense.

      The AR platform utterly dominates the world of 3-gun, the fastest growing segment of competition shooting.

      That’s twice now you’ve lied about what you said. You should stop.

    2. We need to put a stop to the definitional trolling.

      1. Match grade target rifles are made for competition target shooting.

      2. Match-grade target rifles piss on paramilitary weapons for accuracy.

      3. Speed-plinking with paramilitary weapons is not serious competition target shooting.

      4. Only a liar or an idiot would pretend it was.

      That’s it. You need to find another diversionary nitpick.

  37. Dean,

    I’m not following your nomenclature. Please explain how USPSA (United States Practical Shooting Association) shooting competitions are not “competitive shooting”.

  38. BBD,

    “For the last time: the issue here is not individuality, it is the purpose for which the right to keep and bear is accorded.”

    And I keep asking you to explain your theory that rights are accorded for a “purpose”. For example, what was the “purpose” for free speech?

    You never answer.

    1. You mixing up semantics, trying to be a smartarse, but look foolish.
      Purpose has different meaning than outcome.
      You are attempting to compare seperate catagories of attributes of a legal document. Naive as fuck, or
      very troll thing to do just to continue boring gun fondler wanktalk.

    2. And I keep asking you to explain your theory that rights are accorded for a “purpose”.

      Neither ‘mine’ nor a ‘theory’ but a matter of fact.

      Read. The. Words:

      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.

      It’s right there, in black and white.

  39. So let’s apply BBD’s ‘cui bono’ analysis to the Fourth Amendment.

    Who benefits from the most liberal interpretation of the Fourth?

    Criminals.

    Therefore, we can conclude that the ACLU and other civil rights organizations must be criminals.

    BBD logic.

    1. No, this is not logic attributed to anyone but yourself. It comes from your mind with your name at bottom.
      To falsely place idea by anothers pen is particularly unseemly.

    2. Let’s apply it to the rightwing ‘interpretation’ of the 2nd instead of dodging the question.

      Who benefits?

      RickA knows but is too dishonest to give a truthful answer.

      How about you?

  40. BBD,

    Never said that the use of the AR platform in competition was a rationale for the Second Amendment.

    The Second Amendment is the rationale for the Second Amendment.

    Please stop lying.

    1. Never said that the use of the AR platform in competition was a rationale for the Second Amendment.

      Nor did I, you clown. Get a grip.

  41. Li D,

    “You mixing up semantics, trying to be a smartarse, but look foolish.
    Purpose has different meaning than outcome.
    You are attempting to compare seperate catagories of attributes of a legal document. Naive as fuck, or
    very troll thing to do just to continue boring gun fondler wanktalk.”

    You’re talking to the wrong person.

    BBD was the one claiming that rights do not belong to individuals but instead are accorded “for a specific purpose”.

    1. BBD was the one claiming that rights do not belong to individuals but instead are accorded “for a specific purpose”.

      No, I didn’t claim that rights ‘do not belong to individuals’. You just made that up. I stated – correctly – that the 2nd A accorded rights to individuals (white adult males only the time of writing) for a specific purpose.

      Can’t work out if you are just dishonest or functionally illiterate. Which is it?

  42. BBD,

    “For the last time: the issue here is not individuality, it is the purpose for which the right to keep and bear is accorded.”

    And I keep asking you to explain your theory that rights are accorded for a “purpose”. For example, what was the “purpose” for free speech?

    You never answer.

  43. Li D,

    “No, this is not logic attributed to anyone but yourself. It comes from your mind with your name at bottom.
    To falsely place idea by anothers pen is particularly unseemly.”

    Nope. Perfectly reasonable to point out how someone’s arguments can lead to absurd conclusions.

  44. The Second Amendment is the rationale for the Second Amendment.

    Well that is the clearest case of circular reasoning I have seen for a long time.

    The original rationale for the second amendment as it now stands is obsolete. Matters not how many more words and special pleading you care to use you cannot change that reality.

    Go back to playing cowboys and indians with your 3-gun farce.

    1. Well that is the clearest case of circular reasoning I have seen for a long time.

      A speciality of this particular muppet.

      The rationale for the 2nd A is to facilitate the levy of a well regulated militia to ensure the security of the State. It is perfectly clear, and as you say, entirely obsolete and so inapplicable to any right to modern gun ownership.

    2. “The rationale for the 2nd A is to facilitate the levy of a well regulated militia to ensure the security of the State. ”
      Oh so its essentially to advantage the state, not the individual. This makes sense.
      If it was a right thingie for individuals, they woulda phrased it substantially different. Something like ” Citizens can have guns if they want ” .
      I mean, these racist , sexist cocks that did this crap hundreds of years ago were literate and perfectly capable of saying what they mean, wernt they?

    3. Dude!

      What are you doing? Just a few days ago your were dumping on a veteran Green Beret over firearms tactics.

      You said,

      “If he is really any good at his job he would really know different”

      and accused him of,

      “…putting other lives at risK by using Rambo tactics in hostile zones”.

      MAN YOU MUST BE FLIPPIN’ AWESOME!!!!

      By all means tough guy, don’t leave us in suspense. Please tell us about your training and experiences that made you into such a super-duper commando.

      We can’t wait!!!!!!!!

  45. Here is another rationale to consider.

    The Federal Government needs states to have well regulated militias so in times of rebellion, invasion or insurrection it can call up the various State militias.

    In order for states to have the ability to have well regulated militias “the people” have to have arms, because every state militia law at the time required the militia member to bring their own arms when called.

    So the second amendment guarantees that “the people” have the right to keep and bear arms, so the people will have arms when called up for the state militia, and so the states will have well regulated militias for use by the Federal government.

    I see the 2nd amendment as a fundamental right of “the people”, with the expressed purpose being for “the people” to have arms so they could form state militias, which in turn were available for the nation.

    “The people” is much broader than the definition of the militia, so I see “the people” as including women and non-white men and people outside the age bracket, all having the right to keep and bear arms, so the smaller pool of militia people would have arms for the various state militias.

    Anyway – another way to look at it.

    1. The Federal Government needs states to have well regulated militias so in times of rebellion, invasion or insurrection it can call up the various State militias.

      Bollocks on stilts. In 2018, militias are not levied they are voluntary and they are armed by the state. The 2nd A is an anachronism that does not by any reasonable interpretation entitle the general public to keep and bear. The interpretation employed by rightwing judges bears no resemblance to the clearly stated intention of the original.

    2. Here is the pertinent Minnesota statute (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=190.06):

      190.06 MILITIA; MEMBERS; EXEMPTIONS.
      Subdivision 1. Composition. The militia shall consist of:
      (1) all able-bodied citizens of the state and other able-bodied persons residing in the state who have or shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, when so authorized by federal law, who comply with the minimum age requirements for federal regular military service under United
      States Code, title 10, section 505, and who are not more than 45 years of age; provided, that the governor may, when the governor deems it necessary for the defense of the state, extend the maximum age for militia service to not more than 64 years; and
      (2) persons who enlist in, are commissioned in, or are otherwise appointed to the Minnesota National Guard in accordance with applicable federal law and regulation, including enlisted members, warrant officers, and commissioned officers.
      Subd. 2. Classes. The militia shall be divided into two classes, the organized militia and the unorganized militia. The organized militia shall consist of the following:
      (1) the National Guard;
      (2) the State Guard, which shall comprise all organized components of the militia except the National Guard.
      The unorganized militia shall consist of all other members of the militia.

      So the militia is still around, and that is one reason why “the people” still have the right to keep and bear arms.

      The 2nd A is not an anachronism.

    3. The very concept of ‘unorganised militia’ is an anachronism. If you aren’t a volunteer member of the National Guard, you aren’t in or ever under any circumstances going to be conscripted into a militia. This is a matter of fact. So it is also a matter of fact that the 2nd A is an anachronism.

    4. “The Federal Government needs states to have well regulated militias so in times of rebellion, invasion or insurrection it can call up the various State militias.”
      “needs”????
      Utter tosh.
      What, is yankland bereft of something other countries can, do is it?
      Somehow larger and smaller countries manage.

  46. BBD:

    Thank you for your opinion.

    However, depending on your age, you are in the militia (it is not voluntary).

    In Minnesota, the Governor could require every able-body person from 18 to 64 to grab their guns and fight.

    Your just wrong.

    1. “In Minnesota, the Governor could require every able-body person from 18 to 64 to grab their guns and fight.”

      I think you are referring to the state’s Defense Force. The governor can appoint or authorize enlistment. Minnesota does not have a draft. For any state defense force or guard to actually fight, they have to be federalized. It is possible for a state guard (not the national guard) to help in civil unrest (that happened once in Minnesota, against a union uprising, IIRC). That is not quite the same as fighting a war.

  47. BBD,

    Yes you did say that rights do not belong to individuals but are instead accorded for specific purposes.

    BBD said,

    “The issue is not individual rights it is the purpose for which those rights are accorded.”

    Please stop lying.

  48. BBD also said,

    “For the last time: the issue here is not individuality, it is the purpose for which the right to keep and bear is accorded. ”

    Please stop lying.

  49. BBD,

    “Stop repeating your irrelevant crap and read my responses to it instead.”

    That’s not a response. All you do is repeat yourself with no evidence to support your position.

  50. And apparently Lionel A doesn’t have enough education to realize that ‘veteran’ means ‘experienced’, not necessarily ‘former’ or retired’.

    Locus, clearly forgetting what she wrote:

    Master Sgt. Scott Satterlee is only a veteran of…

    Shame on you Locus for accusing me of such, forgetting, when I clearly did not and you did.

    Then there is this extrapolation of meaning not present or intended:

    Lionel A “Of course what it does do is, by your own admission, ’emphasizes quick decision-making and rapid sight acquisition’, just what a dude with a gun and a grudge needs to be able to create as much carnage as possible when in a school where the targets don’t shoot back!”

    To which Locus being the proverbial jelly difficult to nail to the wall offered:

    “Right. Those attributes are only useful to a school shooter. Because we’d want the police entering the building to have slooooooooooowwwwww decision-making and take long, long , long time to acquire the bad guy in their sights.”

    Oh slippery one, get that gun grease off your hands and stop replying out of the side of your mouth.

    1. **YOUR** words Lionel,

      “If he does not then it is a good thing he is a veteran and no longer putting other lives at risk by using Rambo tactics in hostile zones.”

      YOUR WORDS !!!!!

  51. What are you doing? Just a few days ago your were dumping on a veteran Green Beret over firearms tactics.

    Only a twisted mind could come to that conclusion.

    Twisting the words of others is what you do, when you are not using logical fallacies that is, I was dumping on your post introducing 3-gun which was false equivalence on a number of levels. Another of those logical fallacies.

    This is all you have got, your arguments being otherwise so impoverished not only in validity but morally.

    1. **YOUR** words Lionel,

      “If he is really any good at his job he would really know different.”

      How in the hell can you claim that I “twisted” your words???

  52. “The Federal Government needs states to have well regulated militias so in times of rebellion, invasion or insurrection it can call up the various State militias.”

    I would think that even the dimmest of the staunch 2nd Amendment people would ditch this argument. The notion that a bunch of middle-age low-IQ losers holed up in the country could successfully ward off any modern military is a romantic ideal from 300-ish years ago.

  53. “If he is really any good at his job he would really know different.”

    How in the hell can you claim that I “twisted” your words???

    You are missing the context of a rhetorical expression, but then that is another favourite trick of those who have no valid arguments. Same with the other example. Both of which were to demonstrate the stupid simplistic rationale, or lack thereof, of the use of 3-gun to support the ownership of guns by.

    Whatever you write you still cannot justify the twisting of the second amendment wording and intent to support the freedom of the gun nuts against the freedom of life of the innocents that get caught in the bullet stream fired by those with a grudge, or unhinged by some other means such as psychotic drugs or not taking prescribed medication to keep anti-social tendencies at bay.

    But do continue being irrational, or making irrational judgements to appease those who succour you, or should I say sucker you.

    1. Please answer the question. Here are YOUR words,

      “If he is really any good at his job he would really know different.”

      “If he does not then it is a good thing he is a veteran and no longer putting other lives at risk by using Rambo tactics in hostile zones.”

      Explain how you are NOT claiming to know more about tactical shooting than a Special Forces combat veteran. And yes he still is on active duty, “veteran” does not mean ‘former’ or ‘retired’.

      You also said,

      “…of the use of 3-gun to support the ownership of guns by”

      NEVER
      SAID
      THAT!

      BBD said that the AR platform was “crap” and I replied that for a “crap” rifle, the AR was wildly popular in competition, like 3-gun. That’s it.

      PLEASE STOP LYING!!!!!!

    2. BBD said that the AR platform was “crap” and I replied that for a “crap” rifle, the AR was wildly popular in competition, like 3-gun. That’s it.

      No, I said that the AR platform was crap compared to a match grade target rifle, which it is. You’ve definition-trolled the difference between competition target shooting with serious target rifles and speed-plinking with the AR for long enough. What you say is not what I said. Drop it and find something else to troll on.

  54. You also said,

    “…of the use of 3-gun to support the ownership of guns by”

    NEVER
    SAID
    THAT!

    Oh I see, the double standards being played out here by YOU. You are allowed to infer meaning not intended from another’s words or actions but the other is not allowed to make same.

    The asymmetry with that is only matched by the asymmetry between the intent of the 2nd amendment when first agreed way back in history and how you, the gun nuts and the NRA (back to you again I guess) wish it to be interpreted under modern day conditions when weapons and society have both changed out of all recognition.

    As for Master Sgt. Satterlee, you called him a veteran and I took it at that he was retired from active duty as implied by these words of yours:

    But Master Sgt. Scott Satterlee is only a veteran of the Army Special Forces who has fought in Iraq and Afghanistan so what does he know, right?

    Note the ‘has fought’ implying that he no longer is. Whatever, 3-gun is but a pale shadow of any such reality and that was my point, it is a rather futile exercise to make Rambo types feel good about using weapons. It must be a drug substitute, dopamine hits when firing live ammo gives them kicks. What a waste of time, effort, fuel and resources.

    1. “Note the ‘has fought’ implying that he no longer is.”

      No, it just says that he has real world experience. It certainly DOES NOT imply that he won’t serve there again. You don’t know that units rotate in and out of theater? And you’re running your mouth about how Satterlee trains?

      And you **still** haven’t addressed these comments,

      “If he is really any good at his job he would really know different.”

      “If he does not then it is a good thing he is a veteran and no longer putting other lives at risk by using Rambo tactics in hostile zones.”

      and then this nonsense,

      “Whatever, 3-gun is but a pale shadow of any such reality…”

      Oh, but standing still and shooting at targets that are also stationary is better? That’s Satterlee’s point!! Competition shooting like 3-gun might be a “pale imitation” but it’s much B-E-T-T-E-R than what the military is doing now.

      Oh, but I’m sure you know better because you’re a super-duper commando!

  55. “No, I said that the AR platform was crap compared to a match grade target rifle, which it is. You’ve definition-trolled the difference between competition target shooting with serious target rifles and speed-plinking with the AR for long enough. What you say is not what I said. Drop it and find something else to troll on.”

    N-O-N-S-E-N-S-E!!!!

    “Three-gun is a test of skill, an obstacle course, and a race. A typical match includes eight to 12 individual stages, each presenting five to 35 targets that must be hit in the shortest amount of time possible. Targets range from paper silhouettes at fist-fighting range to steel poppers at 600 yards; there may be flying clay pigeons, swinging bowling pins, spinning wheels, or any combination thereof.”

    https://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/guns/2015/06/the-beginners-guide-to-3-gun-competition

    Hitting out to 600 yards with a rifle that is “crap” at accuracy? How is that possible?

    1. Since you are trying hard to come over gun-savvy, we’ve got a problem.

      Anyone who’s been around guns and marksmen knows the difference between speed plinking and serious competition target shooting. So if I take you at face value, then you must be trolling with all your little heart.

      Now, I’ve explained why you’ve got your head up your arse on this one and asked you to stop with the definition trolling and yet you carry on.

      That makes you an anus.

  56. Locus misconstrues, at best, or deliberately distorts the meaning intended by another writer with:

    “Note the ‘has fought’ implying that he no longer is.” [LA]
    “No, it just says that he has real world experience. It certainly DOES NOT imply that he won’t serve there again. You don’t know that units rotate in and out of theater? And you’re running your mouth about how Satterlee trains?” [Locus]

    At this point it is useful to go back to square one of this particular High Horse of yours you kicked off with:

    But Master Sgt. Scott Satterlee is only a veteran of the Army Special Forces who has fought in Iraq and Afghanistan so what does he know, right?

    [Locus]

    Where the word veteran is not qualified to indicate that he will be returning to active duty on the front line. Yes I do know that units rotate in and out of combat zones. As a retired member of HM Forces, i.e. a veteran, and a historian of military, in the broader sense being oceanic, littoral, land and air, I am well aware of that fact.

    So, you see I too am a veteran, and by veteran I mean a retired member of HM Forces. You have decided to over-interpret my words.

    Now the statement I made in response was:

    “I would not be surprised if that Master Sgt. was only toeing the line that the NRA or other handlers required, using whatever inducements. If he is really any good at his job he would really know different. If he does not then it is a good thing he is a veteran and no longer putting other lives at risk by using Rambo tactics in hostile zones.”

    [LA]

    Only somebody who sets out to distort the discussion would take that in toto to be, using your words, ‘dumping on a veteran Green Beret’ (which is the first time the man’s status as being a member of special forces is mentioned). It does not say that he was not good at his job, it only implies that he probably was aware of how unrealistic 3-gun was but chose to give it a pass. As indicated by, ‘If he does not then it is a good thing he is a veteran …[note in the ambiguous sense that you first introduced]’, which statement was intended solely to emphasize the silliness that is 3-gun even if a hardened veteran, whether or not still on the active service list, decides to take part.

    And, unless you are nuts (a distinct possibility given your hostile waspish attitude), you would admit that 3-gun bears no resemblance to life on the front line. That is all I have been saying here.

    You have demonstrated a trigger happy eagerness to attack rather than discuss, this is another reason why guns should be very carefully regulated to avoid falling in to the hands of the unstable with either comprehension difficulties or a talent for cherry picking statements shorn of context.

    1. Lionel A,

      “(which is the first time the man’s status as being a member of special forces is mentioned)”

      No, it was mentioned in my **original** post. Which YOU just quoted!

      “But Master Sgt. Scott Satterlee is only a veteran of the Army Special Forces who has fought in Iraq and Afghanistan so what does he know, right?”

      And now like a weasel you’re trying to claim that I just sprung that on you later. What’s more, Satterlee’s background was clear from the link that I provided. But of course you didn’t read that did you? The article didn’t say what you wanted to hear so you just had to throw a bit, ole queeny fit and start running your mouth.

      And what the hell is this statement?

      “It does not say that he was not good at his job…”

      Yes, you literally said,

      “If he is really any good at his job he would really know different”

      Look at you squirm.

      And we still haven’t gotten to the heart of the matter. Why do you claim to know more than Satterlee about what training is most effective?

      Why, why, why?

      “You have demonstrated a trigger happy eagerness to attack rather than discuss…”

      Your lack of self-awareness is truly astonishing. This entire painful argument came about because of your childish need to attack *everything* your opponent says. You could have conceded that practical shooting competitions have value, but still advocated for stronger gun control.

  57. “(which is the first time the man’s status as being a member of special forces is mentioned)”

    No, it was mentioned in my **original** post. Which YOU just quoted!

    “But Master Sgt. Scott Satterlee is only a veteran of the Army Special Forces who has fought in Iraq and Afghanistan so what does he know, right?”

    My bad on that one I had in mind ‘the green beret’ claim that you used when you castigated me for ‘dumping on a veteran Green Beret’ and I in a senior moment removed the wrong statement from the reply I was putting together, I compose in a WP first so that if the post doesn’t make it in for any reason I have not lost all. This is not a squirm.

    Being a veteran, in the retired sense of the word, I would not as you say ‘dump’ on another veteran which I did not do if you consider the context. However attempting to justify 3-gun on the basis of the participation of such a veteran is as nuts as not acknowledging the obsolescence of the 2nd Amendment as is.

    1. “However attempting to justify 3-gun on the basis of the participation of such a veteran is as nuts…”

      Nope.

      How many times do I have to repeat myself? I was simply pointing out that competitions like 3-gun are not “playing”.

  58. You could have conceded that practical shooting competitions have value…

    No I could not concede that for such competitions have no value to the innocents that get in the way of the strays when such a shooter goes crazy with his gun, this is the whole point of this argument – the 2nd Amendment is not fit for modern day conditions of society and weapons capabilities. You cannot hide this simple fact no matter how many words or distractions you use.

    1. “No I could not concede that for such competitions have no value to the innocents that get in the way of the strays when such a shooter goes crazy with his gun…”

      And which one of the rampage killers was in fact a competitor in practical shooting competitions?

      I haven’t heard of any.

  59. Jesus, are the gun lovers still here, salivating over there gun pornography? The gun is apparently a sex object for a gun lover, judging by their obsession with it. It is apparently an exciting kind of prosthetic extension that makes them more powerful. At least in their minds. The fact that they cannot actualize their power or realize their fantasies in most legal circumstances in life must make most of them, one surmises, an inherently frustrated bunch. Criminals get to use their guns in exciting criminal ways. But law abiding plinkers, plunkers, and other target shooters only have the dull glory of putting holes in paper or other targets and spouting their expertise to non-shooters. Hunters get to kill living things in asymmetrical contests that they call “sport”, where they get to re-enact ancestral survival behaviors to the accolades of… mostly only other hunters. Some other gun lovers get creative and engineer situations where they can use their guns in what might marginally be called “legal self defense” but is actually human hunting, people like Bernhard Goetz or George Zimmerman. Zimmerman got away with it. Goetz served time for what he did.

    Gun lovers for the most part seem to have no empathy for other human beings or living things. Gun lovers always come across as not wanting to appear soft . They seem to want to be the “hero” who saves the day, or who are selfishly intent on saving their own ass above the asses of the rest of society.

    I would much prefer that the loop holes which allow easy access to plentiful guns by criminals be closed. Is that asking for too much?

    I would prefer that our culture NOT give free access to guns to young people except in extraordinary circumstances. This can be engineered.

    I would prefer that adults who allow guns to fall in the hands of children and incompetent people be prosecuted at least as vigorously as adults who allow alcohol to fall into the hands of children.

    As to the second amendment, it is a malleable piece of a malleable document, and absent an effective Ouija board, all attempts to suss the founders intent of one poorly worded line will probably end up as nothing more that a glorious waste of time, because we have a problem today ( too many good guys cut down in the prime of life, on purpose and by fucking accident ) and we should just figure out how to solve that problem, and then, if need be, we can amend the archaic second amendment if needed to comport with modern reality.

    And as to the heroes who want to retain personal arsenals to save the Republic in case of tyrannical takeover… your time would be better spent getting more involved in your government instead in listening to the fucking circle jerk right wing media echo chamber and their well moneyed conservative backers who play you like puppets.

    Have a nice day.

    1. SteveP:

      Thank you Steve for expressing your opinion.

      Some people love guns, some books, some movies and some dogs.

      In American, that is their right.

      We all get to think and even speak our opinion in the USA.

      That is thanks to the 1st amendment.

      The 2nd amendment is, in part, to protect the 1st.

  60. Some people love guns, some books, some movies and some dogs.

    I suppose one could kill somebody with a book.

    I suppose one could kill somebody by the use of dogs.

    But guns are designed to kill.

    Can you now see the difference RickA and how asinine your statement is?

  61. And which one of the rampage killers was in fact a competitor in practical shooting competitions?

    Besides the point. Stop your deflection. If no competition shooter has yet gone on a rampage is more by luck than circumstance but give it time and I am sure there will be if not already.

    Some facts about gun control and the 2nd Amendment.

    The Constitution was amended in 1791 to create the first 10 amendments, just four years after the Constitution was ratified. It has been amended 17 times since 1791, about once every 13 years. It was amended to end slavery in 1865, grant women the right to vote in 1920, repeal prohibition in 1933, and change the age for voting in national elections to 18 years old in 1971.

    RickA take note too.

    1. LionelA:

      Yes – I am aware that the constitution can be amended.

      In fact, I have suggested that as the solution to banning assault weapons.

      Without such an amendment, it is very doubtful that the Supreme Court will uphold a law banning semi-automatic assault type weapons.

  62. And which one of the rampage killers was in fact a competitor in practical shooting competitions?

    I haven’t heard of any.

    Well you won’t will you if you keep putting your head in the sand, or seventh rock from the sun.

    1. Lionel A:

      You should really read Heller and Miller, the two Supreme Court decision I have referred to several times regarding gun control.

      The whole point of the second amendment (at least according to Miller) is to put military weapons into the hands of civilians.

      It is quite surprising that fully automatic weapons are actually successfully banned.

      But without amending the second amendment your argument is moot, because history is quite clear that civilians were to be able to keep and bear military type weapons so they could have them in case they were called up by the State or Federal government.

      You should be happy the AR15 is semi-automatic and not fully automatic.

      But banning it is not really in the cards UNLESS you can arrange to amend the 2nd amendment to permit that.

  63. Shorter RickA

    Humans cannot fly so there is no point in trying. So many words in that last so many failures of logic which we have explained before. I have shown video of an AR5 being fired as an auto – did you miss that?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.