Shooting at Florida high school

I'm sure that bothered Adam Lanza.

AR market?

Tick... tick... tick...

You are living in fantasy land if you think those demonstrations from the tide pod generation will translate into action at the voting booth.Even more crazy if you think those in power dont know that also.

Welp, I'm off to swap out my 12 & 15-rd mags for new state-mandated 10-rd mags.
Hm... since my 1911 only has an 8-rd mag, I'll have to get some of those long 10-rd ones.

I'll have a chance to fire one of the re-done R51s in a couple of weeks and will report back. A friend of mine bought one a couple of months ago and says he hasn't had any trouble with it at all.

Only? That's extended capacity for a 1911. Those 10 round magazines stick way the hell out of the magazine well. I don't care for them myself.

If this is true, it will be over by the end of the week and everything will be back to the old status quo...

Yeah, I'm being sarcastic there.

Come to think of it, you're probably right.

Check the date on that post.

That was a year ago. Motivated by the goodness of his heart and not out of fear of standing up to assholes, like Forbin suggests. Because while there are kids who are picked on unfairly (and those usually begin with asshole teachers or adults), sometimes a cigar is a cigar.

I liked that show Daria as a kid because it did show that yes the outside world is dumb, but did a decent of showing how she contributed to her own loner status.

http://www.newser.com/story/257112/retired-justices-6-words-of-advice-for-student-protesters.html

Tick, tick, tick...

Yeah, but Stevens wasn’t a big fan of the First Amendment either.

Granted, but I'm trying to show you guys that if you don't get together and formulate your own revision or at least rewording - I don't say "repeal" - of the Second, the rest of us will.

@Forbin, for example, has been asked repeatedly for suggestions, but all he does is

I don’t believe it needs rewording.

My views on gun control pretty much mirror MAoHS’s.

Actually, I'd like them to do it out of the goodness, not out of the fear. But it's topical now as a potential preventative. Apparently it has been and will always be a good plan for helping kids that think they're alone.

If I were to rate WF gun owners on a spectrum, you and Shoes and Elwood would qualify for a 10, IMO, as sane, rational, and willing to listen to opposing POVs. I don't believe I've ever seen any of the three of you lose your temper or even get mildly impatient with the "opposition." Everyone else - again, my opinion - falls somewhere between a 9 and a 1, with a bunch-up of 1s, whom I'd define as "No, No, NO, NO, NOOOOOO!"

There's also one poster whom I believe shouldn't be allowed to play with anything but safety scissors. It would not surprise me at all to see his face on the Breaking News.

ETA: We'll see which of them assumes I'm talking about him.

*Pops out of ignore out of curiosity*
I've made suggestions - Anna called me stupid and you called me comical. I've acknowledged arming teachers is impracticable and dropped it. I'm still for engaging at-risk students to maybe keep them from going off the deep end. I have no trouble with deeper background checks. I've always thought people on mood-altering drugs should be kept away from guns.
What have you contributed except sarcasm and insults?
*Back on ignore you go.*

Emphasis mine. This is what those on the middle of the spectrum call "discussion."

As a point of interest, this ain't a new idea. I recently saw a 2003 episode of Joan of Arcadia where her befriending an angry, confused schoolmate kept him from shooting up the school.

I didn't click fast enough!
What have you discussed? You only do this kind of thing. Sarcasm and insults. I guess that's the left end of the spectrum's version of discussion? Sure seems to be.

A former Supreme Court justice asserting that repealing the 2nd Amendment--an astonishingly unlikely proposition--might be a necessary step in order to pass gun control is a tacit admission that gun rights groups have the Constitution on their side.

But I encourage the gun control side to try, anyway.

How would you know? You've bragged about having me on Ignore for years. If you're curious about what I've discussed with others, it's in virtually every gun thread.

Not to mention that he keeps using the term “simple” in the NYT op-ed. No, Justice Stevens, repealing any part of the Bill of Rights is not “simple” nor should it be. If you’re willing to modify the 2nd, that means all 10 are up for ”modernization.”

Last time the left use an 'end-around' to get past the Constitution transformed the Red to Blue in the South (back then the colors were opposite today) and got America Reagan. It could only serve to solidify right-wing support and increase right-leaning turnout. [Would be ten times as powerful as Pelosi and her ilk of limousine libs.]

y'know... I've yet to hear any sort of "solution" proposed from that camp.

and, question answered... :/

Dude, we're of a generation that went through Rush being popular and unlike the TidePod thing, it was real!

Certain Republicans are already trying to rewrite the constitution anyway. Why should they have a monopoly on it?

https://www.economist.com/news/brie...erica-might-see-new-constitutional-convention

Screaming "gun grabbers" doesn't help. There is no one, literally NO ONE of any stature or any standing who thinks sending jackboots out to kick in doors looking for guns is a good idea. Doing a Google search for "gun grabbers" turns up an interesting stew of bigotry and hatred, but no names other than mass denunciations of groups who are not popular with the fringe right.

Certainly, confiscation--at the federal level, anyway--is not in the offing; it would never pass Congress, and would precipitate a civil war if it did. However, there's no doubt that disarmament of civilians is the ultimate aim. I've seen no expression of philosophical limits on gun controls from that side of the table. Indeed, every gun control victory as touted--ominously--as "a good first step."

And bans, while not outright confiscation, are essentially future confiscations. If I can't bequeath my guns to my heirs, then I'm deprived of the rightful usage of my property, and they're deprived of their right to own the guns.

Ah yes, the old slippery slope argument. If one thing happens, something else has to happen. Just as valid as the "Domino Theory" which led to the Vietnam War. AKA absurd extrapolation.