Man arrested at Univ of Kentucky Hospital with firearms, body armor and possible explosives

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Oct 30, 2007
4,736
3,862
1,743
#21
This is a classic slippery slope. Let’s not argue about only allowing bolt-action and primitive firearms. No one has suggested that. Why does anyone need an AR-15 or extended magazines? Has anyone on this board ever needed more than 10 rounds in a handgun? I don’t see the justification.
Here are some interesting questions to consider:
1. Are you okay with AR-15's as long as they're limited to 10 round magazines?
2. Are you aware that it takes around 1.5 seconds to reload an AR-15 or similar weapon?
3. Do you believe that all semi-automatic rifles that accept magazines should automatically become "assault" rifles simply by adding an accessory like a pistol grip?

The deadliest school shooting in the history of our country was perpetrated with 2 common handguns. Banning scary looking "assault" rifles won't stop mass shooting, it will only cause the shooters to choose different weapons. That's why I believe that the far left won't be satisfied until nothing other than bolt action and primitive firearms are legal to own.

Highly trained professionals hit their target about 30% of the time, and it typically takes more than one bullet to bring someone down. You can do the math. A high capacity magazine could obviously be a necessity for any law abiding citizen that's attacked by more than one person. A 10 round capacity isn't that big of a deal for a mass shooter wearing a tactical vest, but it is a big deal for someone asleep in their home during a break in.

I'm all for common sense reform. We need strong background checks. We need to find a way to keep guns out of the hands of anyone that's been deemed by a medical professional to be a danger to themselves or others. We need to take a hard look at how we deal with mental illness in our country. And we need to stop making mass shooters famous. We shouldn't ever release their names. But what we don't need to do is chip away at the 2nd Amendment by making more and more weapons illegal to own.
 
Last edited:

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
30,765
32,205
1,743
oklahoma city
#22
You have questions, I have questions...

Please explain the difference to me between this “hunting” rifle that you state you are okay with and this “assault” rifle that you are not okay with people owning.

View attachment 89569

View attachment 89570
Length and therefore maneuverability in a crowded situation plays some part. By far the most important part, the psychological factors of the person that chooses to kill people with it.

The same reason that most people are more attracted to a Corvette than an Impala even though it can have the same engine. It is the same reason that a fat guy with manboobs can walk around at the public pool with them exposed while a woman with the exact same size breast would get arrested. It isn't just the specs, it is our reaction to it.

People doing these mass killings are living out a disturbed fantasy and that second weapon fits the fantasy better. There are reasonable arguments that assault rifles should be able to be owned and boobs should be able to be shown. But, I don't think that similar specs to other legal things is a really good one.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,389
20,476
1,743
#23
I just gave you reasons a few posts back; riots, pandemics, natural disasters. Heck we just had a president that half the country was 100% convinced was an actual real legitimate threat to take over and install a dictatorship. I have several things that I hope and pray I never need, doesn't mean I'm not going to have them.

Also, why does anybody need a car that can go over 80 mph? I mean if you are so concerned about public safety and saving lives, then why limit yourself to one issue.
The old solve all the problems or solve none of them false dichotomy.

Such a classic chestnut.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,334
17,097
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#24
Length and therefore maneuverability in a crowded situation plays some part. By far the most important part, the psychological factors of the person that chooses to kill people with it.

The same reason that most people are more attracted to a Corvette than an Impala even though it can have the same engine. It is the same reason that a fat guy with manboobs can walk around at the public pool with them exposed while a woman with the exact same size breast would get arrested. It isn't just the specs, it is our reaction to it.

People doing these mass killings are living out a disturbed fantasy and that second weapon fits the fantasy better. There are reasonable arguments that assault rifles should be able to be owned and boobs should be able to be shown. But, I don't think that similar specs to other legal things is a really good one.
So your argument is that if the 2nd rifle was not available, the mentally disturbed person would just shrug their shoulders and refuse to go through with their plan using the first rifle (or a pistol)? Or are you saying that the mere availability of the 2nd rifle somehow creates the disturbed fantasy in some and if it were not available, those individuals wouldn't even think of it?
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
30,765
32,205
1,743
oklahoma city
#25
So your argument is that if the 2nd rifle was not available, the mentally disturbed person would just shrug their shoulders and refuse to go through with their plan using the first rifle (or a pistol)? Or are you saying that the mere availability of the 2nd rifle somehow creates the disturbed fantasy in some and if it were not available, those individuals wouldn't even think of it?
I said none of that at all. Whenever the cabal that this board now consists of responds to my post with "your argument is" there is a 100% chance that it is going to be some collection of strawmen remotely related to what I said and stated in the most absurd way possible. Thanks for not ruining the record.

My post states what it states. If you want to make assumptions based on it you are welcome to do so even though they are your argument, not mine. Just like after reading your post I now assume that when you can't find a cute girl with nice hooters you shrug your shoulders and start hitting on someone like Art Briles.
1616877189978.png
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,334
17,097
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#26
I said none of that at all. Whenever the cabal that this board now consists of responds to my post with "your argument is" there is a 100% chance that it is going to be some collection of strawmen remotely related to what I said and stated in the most absurd way possible. Thanks for not ruining the record.
Then I misunderstood you. The question was what is the different between the 2 rifles. Do you think there is a difference between the two such that one should be illegal and the other should not? Please help me understand what you DID mean.
 
Last edited:

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
30,765
32,205
1,743
oklahoma city
#27
Then I misunderstood you. The question was what is the different between the 2 rifles. Do you think there is a difference between the two such that one should be illegal and the other should not? Please help me understand what you DID mean.
He asked why they were different. I explained why they are different.
I don't have a strong opinion about making them illegal or not.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
10,914
4,293
743
#28
This doesn’t come down to changing the constitution, it’s how we interpret it. And that is tricky since we are no longer living in the era when a person fires a musket into a crowd and would be mobbed before he could load It again.

Also, do we want to encourage people to stockpile enough weapons to fight against the nation’s military strength? You really think you’re going to put up a fight against a military unit? We need to take this discussion to a more modern level. This isn’t the 18th century.
Curious, do you want to reinterpret freedom of speech and freedom of the press based on changing technology or is just guns? Guns of today are more like guns of the 18th century than media of today is like media of the 18th century. Yes, there were repeating muskets at the time the constitution was written.
They had early machine guns. Around that time.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,389
20,476
1,743
#29
They had early machine guns. Around that time.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Whose they? And it would be nice to see sources when citing alleged facts.

I don’t believe the common militia member as historically defined by Scalia in DC v Heller had ready access to “early machine guns” in 1788.
 
Last edited:

TheMonkey

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
4,948
2,259
1,743
46
DFW
#30
Whose they? And it would be nice to see sources when citing alleged facts.

I don’t believe he common militia member as historically defined by Scalia in DC v Heller had ready access to “early machine guns” in 1788.
He’s probably referring to a Gatling gun, which was about as maneuverable as a cannon. It also was not around in the 18th century. It was invented mid-19th century (1851).
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,389
20,476
1,743
#31
He’s probably referring to a Gatling gun, which was about as maneuverable as a cannon. It also was not around in the 18th century. It was invented mid-19th century (1851).
We will see...or we won’t.

That often happens when individuals are asked to establish FACTS as opposed to arguing over OPINIONS.

 
Last edited:

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
10,914
4,293
743
#33
He’s probably referring to a Gatling gun, which was about as maneuverable as a cannon. It also was not around in the 18th century. It was invented mid-19th century (1851).
We will see...or we won’t.

That often happens when individuals are asked to establish FACTS as opposed to arguing over OPINIONS.

I'm not saying the common household had them, but they existed in that time frame. The one I know of was the puckle gun. But there were others before Gatling.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

TheMonkey

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
4,948
2,259
1,743
46
DFW
#34
I'm not saying the common household had them, but they existed in that time frame. The one I know of was the puckle gun. But there were others before Gatling.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Pretty irrelevant to the discussion.

“It was never used during any combat operation or war.[3][4] Production was highly limited and may have been as few as two guns.”
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,334
17,097
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#35
You can Google repeating musket and find there were multiple different variants at the time. The us may have never used them for the military but the fact is they existed so the argument that the founding fathers couldn't envision a semi-automatic firearm is false. Some of those repeating muskets even held more than 10 rounds so the founders could envision that too.
 
Last edited:

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,389
20,476
1,743
#36
I'm not saying the common household had them, but they existed in that time frame. The one I know of was the puckle gun. But there were others before Gatling.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
You do understand the Scalia's quoted passages from DC v. Heller, this is a completely legally irrelevant red herring for 2nd Amendment law that you've thrown out, right?
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,389
20,476
1,743
#37
Pretty irrelevant to the discussion.

“It was never used during any combat operation or war.[3][4] Production was highly limited and may have been as few as two guns.”
And this...

It was one of the earliest weapons to be referred to as a "machine gun", being called such in a 1722 shipping manifest,[2] though its operation does not match the modern use of the term.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,389
20,476
1,743
#38
You can Google repeating musket and find there were multiple different variants at the time. The us may have never used them for the military but the fact is they existed so the argument that the founding fathers couldn't envision a semi-automatic firearm is false. Some of those repeating muskets even held more than 10 rounds.
"Founding fathers couldn't envision...." isn't the 2nd Amendment standard established by Scalia and SCOTUS (again, in the most broadly expansive guns right decision in history).

The standard is, "But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty."

And your own statement clearly reflects those aren't weapons that would have been carried or used by the body of citizens capable of military service who would bring the lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,334
17,097
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#39
"Founding fathers couldn't envision...." isn't the 2nd Amendment standard established by Scalia and SCOTUS (again, in the most broadly expansive guns right decision in history).

The standard is, "But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty."

And your own statement clearly reflects those aren't weapons that would have been carried or used by the body of citizens capable of military service who would bring the lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.
Just because the us military at the time didn't officially use them does not mean they were not used by the military of other nations. And I would suspect a person would still be included in Scalia's definition if they happened to own a repeating musket instead of the single shot kind. Why on earth would they not be?
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,389
20,476
1,743
#40
Just because the us military at the time didn't officially use them does not mean they were not used by the military of other nations. And I would suspect a person would still be included in Scalia's definition if they happened to own a repeating musket instead of the single shot kind. Why on earth would they not be?
So you "suspect" he would his definition of the American "militia" in the 2nd Amendment as "the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty" would include rare and unique weapons at that time possibly used by other professional military of other nations.

LOL....No. Words have meaning. He said what he said.