Gun Control

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Scarlet said:

So by your logic I should be able to drive s#!t faced up until the point I maim or kill someone.  Why not?  "Muh freedom", right?

Driving under the influence is illegal whether or not you kill or maim someone. So no that is not my logic even if you do want your “muh freedom” to drive s#!t faced.  

[Enhance]

5 hours ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

Now if we want to talk gun violence in general we need to address all guns and how to decrease gun violence in general and not just mass shootings

Many of the more recent posts in this thread are discussing issues unexclusively related to the AR-15. You don't have to fixate on the AR-15 unless you choose to.

 

Quote

This becomes a very multi layered issue and I am confident we could come to a

multitude of agreements around a multitude of contributing factors and ways in which to attempt to reduce said gun violence by addressing them.

Except we can't, because gun activists and lobbyists don't want agreement. They want guns. They want accessibility to guns. They want to arm more people, even if those people don't want a gun. They don't want their perceived constitutional "freedoms" put at risk. They meanwhile throw out vague ideas of fixing problems that lead to gun violence (except the guns themselves) without really providing any tenable solutions.

 

So, many of them are not truly interested in addressing gun violence and mass shootings. What they're interested in is preserving gun culture.

[commando]

32 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Driving under the influence is illegal whether or not you kill or maim someone. So no that is not my logic even if you do want your “muh freedom” to drive s#!t faced.  

do you understand why driving under the influence was made illegal?    

[Hedley Lamarr]

32 minutes ago, Enhance said:

Many of the more recent posts in this thread are discussing issues unexclusively related to the AR-15. You don't have to fixate on the AR-15 unless you choose to.

 

Except we can't, because gun activists and lobbyists don't want agreement. They want guns. They want accessibility to guns. They want to arm more people, even if those people don't want a gun. They don't want their perceived constitutional "freedoms" put at risk. They meanwhile throw out vague ideas of fixing problems that lead to gun violence (except the guns themselves) without really providing any tenable solutions.

 

So, many of them are not truly interested in addressing gun violence and mass shootings. What they're interested in is preserving gun culture.

What do you mean "perceived constitutional freedom"?

[Moiraine]

The thing that pisses me off about the reaction to mass shootings is it's the same each time and it's stupid each time, and most of that stupidity is coming from the GOP.

 

1. It's a mental health issue. But let's not spend more $ on mental health issues, and lets call people snowflakes, betas, and cucks when they act like pu**ies. People need to grow a pair and toughen up.

 

2. How dare the Democrats politicize this. Now is not the time to talk about it. But let's not talk about it a month from now either because people have forgotten about it and we're off the hook.

 

 

I see no end in sight for this bulls#!t.

[knapplc]

11 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

I see no end in sight for this bulls#!t.

 

I do. I see guns being banned & turned in or confiscated.

 

The best thing gun enthusiasts could do is bend a little, because if they keep saying "none" that's how many guns they're going to keep.

[DevoHusker]

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

14 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

I do. I see guns being banned & turned in or confiscated.

 

The best thing gun enthusiasts could do is bend a little, because if they keep saying "none" that's how many guns they're going to keep.

 

I agree that bending a little would be the best thing for gun owners to do, but for the sake of reason/public safety, not for the hope of keeping the rest of their guns. The last sentence in your post will never happen in this country.

[B.B. Hemingway]

8 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's one helluva good national security measure.

[knapplc]

53 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

That's one helluva good national security measure.

 

This idea that these guns are protecting their owners from government takeover, or defend this country from a hostile foreign power is pure fantasy.

[B.B. Hemingway]

12 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

This idea that these guns are protecting their owners from government takeover, or defend this country from a hostile foreign power is pure fantasy.

 

I'll grant you that individual gun ownership wouldn't be nearly as effective as it was in the revolutionary/civil wars, but I think it'd be enough to give a foreign power some pause in the event that they would ever want to put boots on the ground in the U.S.

[commando]

1 minute ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

I'll grant you that individual gun ownership wouldn't be nearly as effective as it was in the revolutionary/civil wars, but I think it'd be enough to give a foreign power some pause in the event that they would ever want to put boots on the ground in the U.S.

if they are not afraid of our army, air force, navy, marines.........they are not afraid of joe 6 pack and his AR

[knapplc]

5 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

I'll grant you that individual gun ownership wouldn't be nearly as effective as it was in the revolutionary/civil wars, but I think it'd be enough to give a foreign power some pause in the event that they would ever want to put boots on the ground in the U.S.

 

Nope. Any foreign power strong enough to get past our military isn't going to be concerned in the least with some randos with long rifles.

 

Tanks, APCs, planes, helicopters, drones... And you've got a semiautomatic with a 30-round clip?

 

I'll wager on the fully trained & equipped military in that scenario.

[B.B. Hemingway]

4 minutes ago, commando said:

if they are not afraid of our army, air force, navy, marines.........they are not afraid of joe 6 pack and his AR

 

Yeah, I wasn't suggesting that civilians were going to fight off China.... Was only suggesting that it may give a foreign government something to think about.

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Nope. Any foreign power strong enough to get past our military isn't going to be concerned in the least with some randos with long rifles.

 

Tanks, APCs, planes, helicopters, drones... And you've got a semiautomatic with a 30-round clip?

 

I'll wager on the fully trained & equipped military in that scenario.

 

I would as well....

[funhusker]

I'm going to be a little pissed off at my neighbor that starts shooting at the occupying enemy troops and ultimately gets our entire neighborhood leveled and everyone rounded up and killed...