Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2015 22:17:21 GMT -5
How does the saying go? Its not what you say, it is how you say it. All they did was point fingers and assign blame. That plan included a ban on the popular AR15 and had a 10 round mag limit. That is what killed it. What is the definition of "military style"? What is an "assault weapon"? We discussed this ad nauseam on JI so there is no point in rehashing. The world comes to a stop if the AR-15 is no longer available for sale to the general public.
|
|
|
Post by red75bronco on Jan 17, 2015 9:37:24 GMT -5
Tell me what AR stands for and why these guns are so bad. Why are they worse than any other rifle. What makes them the boogie man? Background checks at stores and gun dealers is fine. The check should be do you have a felony or not. I might be ok with denying if you take anti depressants, but that is a slippery slope. I am not ok with a government agent determining if people are mentally stable for a gun. If I was the agent most liberals couldn't own guns because they are obviously crazy? . If a liberal was the agent, they would obviously think I was crazy because I don't care for our dear leader. The problem I have with universal background checks is on private sales. It is unenforceable without gun registry which everyone should be against. This law would only punish the law abiding citizens. If you tell a criminal that they cannot transfer a gun to another criminal without a background check, I am pretty sure they are going to do it anyway. I just don't understand how anti gunners don't understand the role of the 2nd amendment. I understand if you are afraid of guns( the majority of a it gunners). But why do you want to force me to not have one? If I feel it is appropriate to have one to defend myself why do you care? If I break the law, I will pay the price. It is not like pro gun advocates are saying everyone should have a gun and if they shoot someone there are no consequences.
|
|
|
Post by red75bronco on Jan 17, 2015 9:40:51 GMT -5
BTW, the columbine shooting was during the last AW ban and ten round magazine limit. Still happened. It does not prevent anything. Now, if you allow if you allow teachers to ccw you have a chance. If you don't like that, then put several armed guards at school.
|
|
|
Post by rexneffect on Jan 17, 2015 10:48:42 GMT -5
Tell me what AR stands for and why these guns are so bad. Why are they worse than any other rifle. What makes them the boogie man? Background checks at stores and gun dealers is fine. The check should be do you have a felony or not. I might be ok with denying if you take anti depressants, but that is a slippery slope. I am not ok with a government agent determining if people are mentally stable for a gun. If I was the agent most liberals couldn't own guns because they are obviously crazy? . If a liberal was the agent, they would obviously think I was crazy because I don't care for our dear leader. We can establish reasonable rules for background checks. You seem to agree that there is a reasonable standard that can be applied when you agree that felons should not be allowed to purchase guns (although felons can purchase guns in many states). There are other reasonable standards that can be applied. For example, we also limit gun ownership to those who have been convicted of domestic violence and it would be equally as reasonable to procure a background check for that purpose as it would be to check for felony convictions. We don't need to go down the path of testing ridiculous standards like testing for political affiliation. If guns present a deterrent effect, why would the government absolutely knowing who owns guns not deter the government from attacking those people? Actually, wouldn't it reduce the probability of use of deadly force if the government knew you did not own a gun? More importantly, however, there would not have to be a gun registry, just a registry of owners and those who are prohibited by law from owning or purchasing guns. This is hardly different from the government having records of CHL holders who presumably also are all gun owners. People don't seem to mind the government knowing that they can conceal-carry by obtaining a government license to that effect. I will agree with you that criminals would not conduct background checks on each other but requiring the checks and prosecuting the sellers for failing to perform the check and decline sales to those prohibited from purchase would prevent guns from moving out of the legal marketplace into the black market where criminals can buy and sell them. You sort of pay the price. If you use your gun to kill somebody or your gun is used in an accidental shooting then your jail time is of little use to that person. Even if you had the money to adequately compensate a family for the killing it still does not do much for the person who died. The person who died is the person who really paid the price. And this is one of the key problems that people have with the "pro gun advocates". You all focus on your rights and how gun control laws affect you without any regard for how your gun ownership affects other people. Nobody cares if you own a gun any more than they care whether you own a coffeemaker. If you "pro gun advocates" can self-help the problems of accidental shootings and guns moving into the black market then we can all promptly stop talking about gun control.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2015 16:09:06 GMT -5
Tell me what AR stands for and why these guns are so bad. Why are they worse than any other rifle. What makes them the boogie man? Background checks at stores and gun dealers is fine. The check should be do you have a felony or not. I might be ok with denying if you take anti depressants, but that is a slippery slope. I am not ok with a government agent determining if people are mentally stable for a gun. If I was the agent most liberals couldn't own guns because they are obviously crazy? . If a liberal was the agent, they would obviously think I was crazy because I don't care for our dear leader. The problem I have with universal background checks is on private sales. It is unenforceable without gun registry which everyone should be against. This law would only punish the law abiding citizens. If you tell a criminal that they cannot transfer a gun to another criminal without a background check, I am pretty sure they are going to do it anyway. I just don't understand how anti gunners don't understand the role of the 2nd amendment. I understand if you are afraid of guns( the majority of a it gunners). But why do you want to force me to not have one? If I feel it is appropriate to have one to defend myself why do you care? If I break the law, I will pay the price. It is not like pro gun advocates are saying everyone should have a gun and if they shoot someone there are no consequences. I did not mention banning gun ownership. I understand the 2nd amendment, the entire amendment. You are against a gun registry because the govt will,swoop,in and take em?
|
|
|
Post by Trades on Jan 17, 2015 17:29:06 GMT -5
Tell me what AR stands for and why these guns are so bad. Why are they worse than any other rifle. What makes them the boogie man? Background checks at stores and gun dealers is fine. The check should be do you have a felony or not. I might be ok with denying if you take anti depressants, but that is a slippery slope. I am not ok with a government agent determining if people are mentally stable for a gun. If I was the agent most liberals couldn't own guns because they are obviously crazy? . If a liberal was the agent, they would obviously think I was crazy because I don't care for our dear leader. We can establish reasonable rules for background checks. You seem to agree that there is a reasonable standard that can be applied when you agree that felons should not be allowed to purchase guns (although felons can purchase guns in many states). There are other reasonable standards that can be applied. For example, we also limit gun ownership to those who have been convicted of domestic violence and it would be equally as reasonable to procure a background check for that purpose as it would be to check for felony convictions. We don't need to go down the path of testing ridiculous standards like testing for political affiliation. If guns present a deterrent effect, why would the government absolutely knowing who owns guns not deter the government from attacking those people? Actually, wouldn't it reduce the probability of use of deadly force if the government knew you did not own a gun? More importantly, however, there would not have to be a gun registry, just a registry of owners and those who are prohibited by law from owning or purchasing guns. This is hardly different from the government having records of CHL holders who presumably also are all gun owners. People don't seem to mind the government knowing that they can conceal-carry by obtaining a government license to that effect. I will agree with you that criminals would not conduct background checks on each other but requiring the checks and prosecuting the sellers for failing to perform the check and decline sales to those prohibited from purchase would prevent guns from moving out of the legal marketplace into the black market where criminals can buy and sell them. You sort of pay the price. If you use your gun to kill somebody or your gun is used in an accidental shooting then your jail time is of little use to that person. Even if you had the money to adequately compensate a family for the killing it still does not do much for the person who died. The person who died is the person who really paid the price. And this is one of the key problems that people have with the "pro gun advocates". You all focus on your rights and how gun control laws affect you without any regard for how your gun ownership affects other people. Nobody cares if you own a gun any more than they care whether you own a coffeemaker. If you "pro gun advocates" can self-help the problems of accidental shootings and guns moving into the black market then we can all promptly stop talking about gun control. Kind of like talking about inner-city crime and Muslim terrorists. If they would self-help the problems of violence and hatred in their communities then we can all stop talking about profiling. Right?
|
|
|
Post by red75bronco on Jan 17, 2015 18:02:42 GMT -5
We can establish reasonable rules for background checks. You seem to agree that there is a reasonable standard that can be applied when you agree that felons should not be allowed to purchase guns (although felons can purchase guns in many states). There are other reasonable standards that can be applied. For example, we also limit gun ownership to those who have been convicted of domestic violence and it would be equally as reasonable to procure a background check for that purpose as it would be to check for felony convictions. We don't need to go down the path of testing ridiculous standards like testing for political affiliation. If guns present a deterrent effect, why would the government absolutely knowing who owns guns not deter the government from attacking those people? Actually, wouldn't it reduce the probability of use of deadly force if the government knew you did not own a gun? More importantly, however, there would not have to be a gun registry, just a registry of owners and those who are prohibited by law from owning or purchasing guns. This is hardly different from the government having records of CHL holders who presumably also are all gun owners. People don't seem to mind the government knowing that they can conceal-carry by obtaining a government license to that effect. I will agree with you that criminals would not conduct background checks on each other but requiring the checks and prosecuting the sellers for failing to perform the check and decline sales to those prohibited from purchase would prevent guns from moving out of the legal marketplace into the black market where criminals can buy and sell them. You sort of pay the price. If you use your gun to kill somebody or your gun is used in an accidental shooting then your jail time is of little use to that person. Even if you had the money to adequately compensate a family for the killing it still does not do much for the person who died. The person who died is the person who really paid the price. And this is one of the key problems that people have with the "pro gun advocates". You all focus on your rights and how gun control laws affect you without any regard for how your gun ownership affects other people. Nobody cares if you own a gun any more than they care whether you own a coffeemaker. If you "pro gun advocates" can self-help the problems of accidental shootings and guns moving into the black market then we can all promptly stop talking about gun control. Kind of like talking about inner-city crime and Muslim terrorists. If they would self-help the problems of violence and hatred in their communities then we can all stop talking about profiling. Right? Accidental shootings must constitute a very small percentages of deaths in America. And with that, I am a huge proponent of education and training. I won't even discuss guns moving into the black market until the borders are secure and our government quits putting guns in the black market. Fast and furious pretty much tells the story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2015 18:21:47 GMT -5
Kind of like talking about inner-city crime and Muslim terrorists. If they would self-help the problems of violence and hatred in their communities then we can all stop talking about profiling. Right? Accidental shootings must constitute a very small percentages of deaths in America. And with that, I am a huge proponent of education and training. I won't even discuss guns moving into the black market until the borders are secure and our government quits putting guns in the black market. Fast and furious pretty much tells the story. Must? Where is training mandatory for gun ownership?
|
|
|
Post by red75bronco on Jan 17, 2015 18:34:06 GMT -5
Accidental shootings must constitute a very small percentages of deaths in America. And with that, I am a huge proponent of education and training. I won't even discuss guns moving into the black market until the borders are secure and our government quits putting guns in the black market. Fast and furious pretty much tells the story. Must? Where is training mandatory for gun ownership? I am not wasting my time looking up the percentages of deaths due to accidental shootings. It just doesn't happen enough. I would guess ther are more stabbings in a month in Chicago than there are accidental shootings. Training is not and should not be mandatory to own a gun. Tell mewha tis mandatory to exercise your 1st amendment rights, 4th, etc. please tell me why you hate me having the right to own a gun. Are you scared of the gun or the person. If it is the person, are you scared if they have a knife, what about a baseball bat, what about a car to run you over, ied? If it is the gun, many of my guns have been left alone for long periods of time with a round chambered and they never shot anyone. It is amazing how it is just an inanimate object and is always where I left it and there are no dead people around it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2015 21:46:01 GMT -5
Must? Where is training mandatory for gun ownership? I am not wasting my time looking up the percentages of deaths due to accidental shootings. It just doesn't happen enough. I would guess ther are more stabbings in a month in Chicago than there are accidental shootings. Training is not and should not be mandatory to own a gun. Tell mewha tis mandatory to exercise your 1st amendment rights, 4th, etc. please tell me why you hate me having the right to own a gun. Are you scared of the gun or the person. If it is the person, are you scared if they have a knife, what about a baseball bat, what about a car to run you over, ied? If it is the gun, many of my guns have been left alone for long periods of time with a round chambered and they never shot anyone. It is amazing how it is just an inanimate object and is always where I left it and there are no dead people around it? You keep throwing in stuff that doesn't matter to this topic. Way too many idiots own guns and way too many people think the gov't is going to abolish gun ownership. It's not going to happen. Please point out out where I have advocated abolishing gun ownership? Regulations are necessary because there are way too many gun owning idiots in this country.
|
|
|
Post by Gunnails on Jan 17, 2015 23:04:50 GMT -5
CR your an idiot. I ask a question and you no answer. You ask a question and ignore the answers. Typical, Feds know best cause there trained, public = too many gun owning idiots. GFYS.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2015 10:01:21 GMT -5
CR your an idiot. I ask a question and you no answer. You ask a question and ignore the answers. Typical, Feds know best cause there trained, public = too many gun owning idiots. GFYS. What question did you ask? If you want to call some one an idiot maybe you should proof read your post before posting it. There re are people who take gun ownership very seriously, but there are way too many who do not and regulations are needed because of them. Ask a a parent in Sandy Hook if the mother of the animal should have owned a arsenal of guns.
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Jan 18, 2015 10:35:54 GMT -5
CR your an idiot. I ask a question and you no answer. You ask a question and ignore the answers. Typical, Feds know best cause there trained, public = too many gun owning idiots. GFYS. What question did you ask? If you want to call some one an idiot maybe you should proof read your post before posting it. There re are people who take gun ownership very seriously, but there are way too many who do not and regulations are needed because of them. Ask a a parent in Sandy Hook if the mother of the animal should have owned a arsenal of guns. What that mother needed was the power to have her son put away but bc of libtards like the aclu it is nearly impossible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2015 10:45:52 GMT -5
What question did you ask? If you want to call some one an idiot maybe you should proof read your post before posting it. There re are people who take gun ownership very seriously, but there are way too many who do not and regulations are needed because of them. Ask a a parent in Sandy Hook if the mother of the animal should have owned a arsenal of guns. What that mother needed was the power to have her son put away but bc of libtards like the aclu it is nearly impossible. That's your argument?
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Jan 18, 2015 10:58:41 GMT -5
What that mother needed was the power to have her son put away but bc of libtards like the aclu it is nearly impossible. That's your argument? Just a small piece of it. People say that if those guns were illegal he wouldn't have done that. Actually he still could have done it with other weapons or he could have made a bomb. But if that kid was getting the mental help he needed in a facility he definitely wouldn't have been able to do that. That is the root of the problem. Access to guns is merely a branch on the tree. Im getting deja vu. We have had these discussions already. I am bowing out of this one.
|
|