The Gun Control Debate Thread

boozeman · Jun 28, 2016

Iamtdg said:
So, where do you draw the line in what kills people? McVay killed 160+ people with fertilizer. Where is the ban?

BTW, there have been quite a few incidents lately of people driving through crowds of people and killing many. The analogy holds.

The analogy does not hold. All of these other things are not designed for the purposes they are used. Guns are used for what they were intended to do.

Cotton · Jun 28, 2016

boozeman said:
The analogy does not hold. All of these other things are not designed for the purposes they are used. Guns are used for what they were intended to do.

You don't get to say what guns are intended for. Not everyone has guns with the intentions of killing someone, or even something. My dad has a gun and he uses it for nothing but shooting targets.

boozeman · Jun 28, 2016

Iamtdg said:
You don't get to say what guns are intended for. Not everyone has guns with the intentions of killing someone, or even something. My dad has a gun and he uses it for nothing but shooting targets.

So guns were invented for recreation?

How about that.

Cotton · Jun 28, 2016

boozeman said:
So guns were invented for recreation?

How about that.

That's not what I said, Jiggy.

townsend · Jun 28, 2016

Iamtdg said:
Knives don't, and they kill people, too. As does fertilizer. The analogy holds.

Guns primary and only purpose is to kill things, that's what they're made for. The majority of people use fertilizer, pressure cookers, cars and knives for non lethal purposes. I would say the majority of gun owners buy guns for "personal defense" which is to say being able to kill somebody before they kill you.

fortsbest · Jun 28, 2016

boozeman said:
An incredibly stupid analogy. Guns have a different purpose than automobiles.

Why don't you just say you disagree with the analogy? It isn't stupid at all. Make a point without being mean spirited about it. OR can you? LT asked a question and I gave him an answer that is relevant. Yes, guns were made for killing, but it isn't their only purpose. I know many that own guns that have no intention of ever killing anything. Could they? Sure, but again, so could their car.
So If you know there is a Constitutionally protected activity but half the politicians want to take it from you. having a list of people that take advantage of that properly exercised right would be beneficial for you to target them with. And the law passed is another way to get that started. The guns are already registered to the owners though the purchase for the major part, why do they need another list in the hands of a federal law enforcement agency?

Angrymesscan · Jun 29, 2016

I really don't know about this, but if someone has a permit and commits a felony is that permit revoked and do they have to dispose of the weapon?

Cowboysrock55 · Jun 29, 2016

Angrymesscan said:
I really don't know about this, but if someone has a permit and commits a felony is that permit revoked and do they have to dispose of the weapon?

There is no permit. You don't need a permit to carry a gun, that's unconstitutional. What you need a permit for is concealed carry or a hunting permit. And yes those things are revoked upon the commission of a crime. No they don't have to dispose of the weapon but if they are caught with a firearm as a convicted felon they get charged with a new felony crime.

Cowboysrock55 · Jun 29, 2016

townsend said:
Guns primary and only purpose is to kill things,

Not really at all, although I'm not sure that it really matters. I mean someone who goes skeet shooting isn't trying to kill anything. Not anymore then a person who goes paintballing is trying to kill someone. Hell shooting a gun is part of the olympics and I don't think anyone is trying to kill during the winter games.

But again who cares? Rat poison's only purpose is to kill things. Mouse traps only purpose is to kill things. So why should I really care about that?

UncleMilti · Jun 29, 2016

townsend said:
Personally I don't necessarily give a damn if the assault weapons ban is reinstated. I don't think assault weapon ownership has improved a single person's life I think there might be some families that benefit from not having their husbands blow money on weapons they'll never use.

But it won't help. Paris had gun regulations, England just had a high profile assassination, something that hasn't happened in the US in a very long time, but if it had, the usual suspects would be saying gun control would have prevented it.

I'm guessing the poor Koreans who got caught during the LA riots without a cop within 20 miles of them probably were glad they could stand on their rooftop with their AR-15's and watch while everyone else's shops were looted...yet no one dared go in theirs. :lol

In all seriousness though, I'm a huge pro 2A guy, but I have questioned how easy it it is to walk in and buy one of these guns.

But do I think they need to be banned? No. Not at all.

What we need are less spineless politicians, more laws that help keep ANY firearms out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them (while not worrying about offending someone), and finally a political system that will pass laws and enforce the laws already on the books that keep the stolen firearm gangbangers and repeat offenders in prison where they belong.

Theres plenty of proof to see how restricting law abiding citizens rights to own a firearm, yet letting felons who have been arrested 4,5,8 times for unlawfully possessing firearms back out on the street doesn't do a fucking thing for killings and murders. Look no further than Chicago.

Now do all that, and if we are still losing hundreds of victims to "assault rifle" shootings then maybe its time to look at banning the weapons or restricting the mag capacity.

Of course thats another topic for another day.

L.T. Fan · Jun 30, 2016

pdom said:
2nd amendment doesn't say anything about qualifying folks who can bear arms. Everyone has the right to bear arms, even ex-cons that have served their time.

Maybe they should loose those rights if they have proven their reckless disregard for the legal system.

Cowboysrock55 · Jun 30, 2016

pdom said:
Shouldnt be released from prison then. This is Bill of Rights, not a privilege. Even repeat DUI offenders can get their driving privileges reinstated.

We treat people who have been convicted of a felony as second rate citizens. The problem is they aren't a very sympothetic group of citizens so no politician is willing to stick his neck out for them. But I agree, if they are so dangerous that they can't be trusted with normal rights then you should probablyleave them in prison. Don't treat them like half citizens.

L.T. Fan · Jun 30, 2016

pdom said:
Shouldnt be released from prison then. This is Bill of Rights, not a privilege. Even repeat DUI offenders can get their driving privileges reinstated.

Maybe should have a look at that also. Couldn't hurt for these folks to forfeit part of their rights a part of punishment. A lot of the offenders certainly trampled their victims rights.

Jiggyfly · Jun 30, 2016

UncleMilti said:
I'm guessing the poor Koreans who got caught during the LA riots without a cop within 20 miles of them probably were glad they could stand on their rooftop with their AR-15's and watch while everyone else's shops were looted...yet no one dared go in theirs.

In all seriousness though, I'm a huge pro 2A guy, but I have questioned how easy it it is to walk in and buy one of these guns.

But do I think they need to be banned? No. Not at all.

What we need are less spineless politicians, more laws that help keep ANY firearms out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them (while not worrying about offending someone), and finally a political system that will pass laws and enforce the laws already on the books that keep the stolen firearm gangbangers and repeat offenders in prison where they belong.

Theres plenty of proof to see how restricting law abiding citizens rights to own a firearm, yet letting felons who have been arrested 4,5,8 times for unlawfully possessing firearms back out on the street doesn't do a fucking thing for killings and murders. Look no further than Chicago.

Now do all that, and if we are still losing hundreds of victims to "assault rifle" shootings then maybe its time to look at banning the weapons or restricting the mag capacity.

Of course thats another topic for another day.

This is how I feel about it as well my biggest issue is the gunshow loophole.

NoDak · Jun 30, 2016

Jiggyfly said:
This is how I feel about it as well my biggest issue is the gunshow loophole.

There is no "gunshow loophole". It's just a fabrication to try and scare and control the weak minded and uninformed.

http://louderwithcrowder.com/myth-busted-the-gun-show-loophole/ <<<<< VIDEO showing the "loophole" in action.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/30/the-gun-show-loophole-myth/

http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/07/7-gun-control-myths-that-just-wont-die/

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/facts-about-gun-shows

http://dailysignal.com/2013/02/08/background-checks-and-the-so-called-gun-show-loophole/

UncleMilti · Jun 30, 2016

NoDak said:
There is no "gunshow loophole". It's just a fabrication to try and scare and control the weak minded and uninformed.

http://louderwithcrowder.com/myth-busted-the-gun-show-loophole/ <<<<< VIDEO showing the "loophole" in action.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/30/the-gun-show-loophole-myth/

http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/07/7-gun-control-myths-that-just-wont-die/

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/facts-about-gun-shows

http://dailysignal.com/2013/02/08/background-checks-and-the-so-called-gun-show-loophole/

Kinda like Feinstein and her fucking cronies telling anyone who'll listen the "AR" in AR-15 stands for "assault rifle".

Cotton · Jun 30, 2016

UncleMilti said:
Kinda like Feinstein and her fucking cronies telling anyone who'll listen the "AR" in AR-15 stands for "assault rifle".

Armolyte. Or however it's spelled. People are so uneducated on this issue.

NoDak · Jun 30, 2016

Iamtdg said:
Armolyte. Or however it's spelled. People are so uneducated on this issue.

Armalite Rifles. The AR10/.308 was the first one they made. Then the AR15/.223 a year or two later.

Cotton · Jun 30, 2016

NoDak said:
Armalite Rifles. The AR10/.308 was the first one they made. Then the AR15/.223 a year or two later.

But but but... it's all about the words "assault" and "high powered". Nasty words. I just shot a pig with a .308 that wasn't an AR. I still killed it. And, I didn't kill a human and stuff. Just a pig. And I'm gonna eat it.

Jiggyfly · Jul 1, 2016

NoDak said:
There is no "gunshow loophole". It's just a fabrication to try and scare and control the weak minded and uninformed.

http://louderwithcrowder.com/myth-busted-the-gun-show-loophole/ <<<<< VIDEO showing the "loophole" in action.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/30/the-gun-show-loophole-myth/

http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/07/7-gun-control-myths-that-just-wont-die/

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/facts-about-gun-shows

http://dailysignal.com/2013/02/08/background-checks-and-the-so-called-gun-show-loophole/

I did not know the actual numbers and yeah it has been blown out of proportion.

I stand corrected.

The Gun Control Debate Thread

28 Years And Counting...

One-armed Knife Sharpener

28 Years And Counting...

One-armed Knife Sharpener

Banned

DCC 4Life

DCC 4Life

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

This seemed like a good idea at the time.

I'm Easy If You Are

Super Moderator

I'm Easy If You Are

Banned

Hotlinking' sonofabitch

This seemed like a good idea at the time.

One-armed Knife Sharpener

Hotlinking' sonofabitch

One-armed Knife Sharpener

Banned