[Discussion] Mass Shooting at Uvalde Elementary School

[Brisketexan 105154]

I’m talking about the weapon with the same fire rate, with larger projectiles and similar velocity of the AR.  It’s a less dressed up AR in a larger and stronger caliber. Curious what antique has to do with it, other than including for even further lax regulations, or making you feel better?  I can buy 5 round magazines for an AR, too.  And a 30 round mag for my 30 carbine, or mini 14.  And last I checked, my 30 carbine was still plenty fucking deadly, even being an “antique”.  

Correct.
That’s why I’ve pointed out that the “look what damage a 5.56 round can do” discussion is a red herring (my bolt action 30/06 and .300 WBY mag can do even more damage). When it comes to mass shootings, the issue is how many rounds can be sent down rage in one fell swoop. The way to address that is limits on magazine size. Whether it’s an AR, a .30 carbine, or a mini-14, 10 round mag max. I thought the old assault weapons ban was misguided and ultimately ineffective for that reason.
And of course, I also support a higher age requirement for purchase, universal background checks, safe storage laws, and robust red flag laws.
I’m not a “gun grabber,” never have been. But I’ve always been a supporter of more robust gun laws. I’ve just been opposed without quarter or compromise by….the extremist “2nd amendment, what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ don’t you understand!” crowd (who conveniently ignore Scalia’s plain statements in Heller that of course gun ownership can be regulated).
I’d like us to keep our firearms, and our ability to own and use them responsibly. And I see the refusal to do ANYTHING, taking ZERO responsibility, as a recipe for ultimately losing all those things.
If gun owners continue to be zero-compromise dicks, then eventually public sentiment will turn so far against firearms that there will be enough votes to just repeal the 2nd amendment altogether. If gun owners want to pursue a path that ends in the ability to own firearms being completely taken away, they’re following that path perfectly.

[Brian Fantana 6689]

2 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Crusades?  More like the sacking of Rome by the Visigoths.

They were pretty effective, but imagine how much damage they could have done if they were instead INVisigoths.

I'll see myself out.

[Chopper 17238]

also @NotActuallyALonghornif you'd take the slightest moment to educate yourself you'd understand that it's the NRA which has served as a russian asset, not gun control advocates.

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6432520-The-NRA-Russia-How-a-Tax-Exempt-Organization

Russia has pretty strict gun control so it's completely on-point that the NRA would parade a bunch of russian secret operatives around as gun proponents, and that their organization's brain-damaged fan bois would lap it up.

[fattyflattie 4639]

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Whether it’s an AR, a .30 carbine, or a mini-14, 10 round mag max.

Fine with me. I guess now we get to hear from every seminauto owning, tube mag guy, “but not mine, right?  I mean how much damage can my peashooter that falls outside the parameters I want, do? There’s so much difference between my >10 mag and some fucking AR15!!1!”   Its happened on this very board before. 
 

I really don’t know why it bothers me when people place nearly all the blame at the feet of a platform I don’t even gaf about, but it does. I guess it’s better for the blame to land there than higher end bolt actions and OUs, where I prefer to stay.  

[Pato del Muerto 52524]

12 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

They were pretty effective, but imagine how much damage they could have done if they were instead INVisigoths.

I'll see myself out.

They were there too. 

[CHIEF 5093]

22 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Correct.
That’s why I’ve pointed out that the “look what damage a 5.56 round can do” discussion is a red herring (my bolt action 30/06 and .300 WBY mag can do even more damage). When it comes to mass shootings, the issue is how many rounds can be sent down rage in one fell swoop. The way to address that is limits on magazine size. Whether it’s an AR, a .30 carbine, or a mini-14, 10 round mag max. I thought the old assault weapons ban was misguided and ultimately ineffective for that reason.
And of course, I also support a higher age requirement for purchase, universal background checks, safe storage laws, and robust red flag laws.
I’m not a “gun grabber,” never have been. But I’ve always been a supporter of more robust gun laws. I’ve just been opposed without quarter or compromise by….the extremist “2nd amendment, what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ don’t you understand!” crowd (who conveniently ignore Scalia’s plain statements in Heller that of course gun ownership can be regulated).
I’d like us to keep our firearms, and our ability to own and use them responsibly. And I see the refusal to do ANYTHING, taking ZERO responsibility, as a recipe for ultimately losing all those things.
If gun owners continue to be zero-compromise dicks, then eventually public sentiment will turn so far against firearms that there will be enough votes to just repeal the 2nd amendment altogether. If gun owners want to pursue a path that ends in the ability to own firearms being completely taken away, they’re following that path perfectly.

All existing rifles and magazines are gonna have to be grandfathered in. The only way to get any concessions is no one is going to have to give up anything they already have, or be arrested for having it, or have it confiscated. Simply make it where manufacturers only make 10 round mags from here out. Raise the age to 25 and a Universal background check, and a waiting period for purchase of semi-auto rifles. Close gun show loopholes, and be done.

CHIEF

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19103]

55 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Except that the meme is 100% accurate. My favorite is when our most outspoken ledge-dwelling attorney on the board slams one, but neglects to mention the one he bought. 

 

40 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I’m talking about the weapon with the same fire rate, with larger projectiles and similar velocity of the AR.  It’s a less dressed up AR in a larger and stronger caliber. Curious what antique has to do with it, other than including for even further lax regulations, or making you feel better?  I can buy 5 round magazines for an AR, too.  And a 30 round mag for my 30 carbine, or mini 14.  And last I checked, my 30 carbine was still plenty fucking deadly, even being an “antique”.  

 

10 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Fine with me. I guess now we get to hear from every seminauto owning, tube mag guy, “but not mine, right?  I mean how much damage can my peashooter that falls outside the parameters I want, do? There’s so much difference between my >10 mag and some fucking AR15!!1!”   Its happened on this very board before. 
 

I really don’t know why it bothers me when people place nearly all the blame at the feet of a platform I don’t even gaf about, but it does. I guess it’s better for the blame to land there than higher end bolt actions and OUs, where I prefer to stay.  

Really?  You are going to trot out the @Brisketexan bough a gun ergo he is a hypocrite argument? For someone who allegedly doesn't really care about this issue you sure are repeating a bunch of gun nut propo to make your case you allegedly don't care about.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19103]

4 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

All existing rifles and magazines are gonna have to be grandfathered in. The only way to get any concessions is no one is going to have to give up anything they already have, or be arrested for having it, or have it confiscated. Simply make it where manufacturers only make 10 round mags from here out. Raise the age to 25 and a Universal background check, and a waiting period for purchase of semi-auto rifles. Close gun show loopholes, and be done.

CHIEF

I also think you have a voluntary buy back program.  Make it worth people's while to sell their gun back to you.  Also, closing down the gun show loophole is part of it, but you also have to close down the loophole that person to person sales are as well.  That shit happens all the time.

[Hermanator 7107]

10 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

This is the real concern with masks. You see a chick with captivating eyes wearing a mask and you think she is all that, and then you see her without one and you realize that there is a reason we aren't solely attracted to their eyes.

Hey, you're not staring at the mantle when you're poking the fire

[Jambon 176]

People who crap on the Director's Cup are idiots.  UT wants the best students and student/athletes to come on campus.  Success in other sports other than football or basketball is extremely important.  These successful athletes go on and represent the University in places like the Olympics (swimming and T&F), major golf tournaments (Speith, Scheffler), etc.  All this is damn important for UT's brand recognition nationally and internationally. 

[Brisketexan 105154]

All existing rifles and magazines are gonna have to be grandfathered in. The only way to get any concessions is no one is going to have to give up anything they already have, or be arrested for having it, or have it confiscated. Simply make it where manufacturers only make 10 round mags from here out. Raise the age to 25 and a Universal background check, and a waiting period for purchase of semi-auto rifles. Close gun show loopholes, and be done.
CHIEF

I also think you have a voluntary buy back program.  Make it worth people's while to sell their gun back to you.  Also, closing down the gun show loophole is part of it, but you also have to close down the loophole that person to person sales are as well.  That shit happens all the time.

If we went with these - plus safe storage laws - I’d be beyond thrilled with that level of action.
Not a bit of that will happen. And we all know who will make sure of that.

[956 Worldwide 34715]

If there are so many alternatives to the AR-15 that are just as good and can do the same things, why don’t y’all just let the dumbass libs ban the AR-15 to make their feelz better and enjoy all the other guns that are the same? 
 

I am also a brisket level hypocrite in that I own a semi-automatic rifle.  I also think magazine capacity is a smart thing to target. There is no scenario outside of fever dreams of pretend hog-hunters where a high-capacity mag is good for anything except delivering many rounds into human targets. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

14 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Really?  You are going to trot out the @Brisketexan bough a gun ergo he is a hypocrite argument? For someone who allegedly doesn't really care about this issue you sure are repeating a bunch of gun nut propo to make your case you allegedly don't care about.

No. I’m trotting out that he slams ARs, but bought a version of one, for which there is no technical difference, other than his is considerably more powerful.  He has lots of other guns. He’s a law abiding gun owner, and should be able to own them all. 

[Hermanator 7107]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

Except that the meme is 100% accurate. My favorite is when our most outspoken ledge-dwelling attorney on the board slams one, but neglects to mention the one he bought. 

I've fired all 3 types in the meme and the AR15 is much easier to use, especially for a beginner, than the other 2. It's a bullshit meme even incorrect on the point it was trying to make. 

Even so this seems like an easy fix. Take all the mass shooting data from however long we've been recording it and get the statistical identity of the majority of US mass shooters. Preferably at a higher than 51 percent majority, somewhere around 75 percent or so. Or can do averages and throw out the top 5 percent and bottom 5 percent outliers. 

Then make the age to legally purchase and own guns around the mark that reduces 75 percent or so of those attacker's ability to legally own guns. Make it a felony to be in possession of a gun without supervision under the age limit and institute a mandatory federal registry of all gun owners in the US. Make it a crime if one of a legal gun owner's guns is used by an underage person to commit a crime and that owner permanently loses their right to own guns. 

Let's face it, this is pretty much all dudes under 35 doing this shit. Probably mostly dudes under 30.  Young males are aggressive and before having kids and marriage feel they are invincible with nothing to lose. They shouldn't have legal access to firearms until the age when they tend to be more responsible as a whole. 

Easy solution to try out that would reduce this big time and gun owners of a more socially responsible age can still own their guns. 

[cactusflinthead 27601]

7 minutes ago, Jambon said:

People who crap on the Director's Cup are idiots.  UT wants the best students and student/athletes to come on campus.  Success in other sports other than football or basketball is extremely important.  These successful athletes go on and represent the University in places like the Olympics (swimming and T&F), major golf tournaments (Speith, Scheffler), etc.  All this is damn important for UT's brand recognition nationally and internationally. 

Wrong thread bro

[fattyflattie 4639]

3 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

I've fired all 3 types in the meme and the AR15 is much easier to use, especially for a beginner, than the other 2. It's a bullshit meme even incorrect on the point it was trying to make. 

 

That is horseshit. A mini 14/30 and AR basically have a different stock material. Fin. 

[CHIEF 5093]

I'm not sure a buy back program would be worth the time and money it would take for the government to implement it. I say that as someone who has never sold a gun, or would sell any of the guns I own. I consider them family heirlooms, kind of like my wife's china. They will be left to my future generations, since they may eventually loose the right to purchase them. Everyone in my circle that owns guns feel the same way.

I own a gun safe, so I can keep my guns locked away. I don't have small children, or have any that visit, so we have a few in closets and under beds. But "do you have anyone under the age of 16 that routinely stays in your home? should definitely be a red flag question.

CHIEF

[Hermanator 7107]

21 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

All existing rifles and magazines are gonna have to be grandfathered in. The only way to get any concessions is no one is going to have to give up anything they already have, or be arrested for having it, or have it confiscated. Simply make it where manufacturers only make 10 round mags from here out. Raise the age to 25 and a Universal background check, and a waiting period for purchase of semi-auto rifles. Close gun show loopholes, and be done.

CHIEF

Not true. You institute a buy back program for people with now illegal weapons and give a time period for them to either use the buy back program or dispose/permanently destroy them. After that date has passed anyone caught illegally possessing an illegal weapon gets an automatic felony charge as well as loses the right to own guns for 5 years or 10 years or something like that. After the time period they have to take and pass responsible owner classes to gain the right to own guns back. 

I mean shit we do these sorts of things for people to get back the right to drive cars after having their license suspended and driving is far more crucial to making a living for the average American than owning guns. 

[Hermanator 7107]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

That is horseshit. A mini 14/30 and AR basically have a different stock material. Fin. 

Spoken like a jackass who hasn't fired them. 

There are distinct differences in operation, feel, recoil between them. 

But I'm all for keeping all of them legal just making the legal age 35 and reducing max magazine sizes to 5. 

[956 Worldwide 34715]

You can get the Mini-14 as a wood stock ranch rifle, and there are more tactical/black gun type minis with folding stocks and you can fit a high-capacity magazine. I’d be fine with allowing the former and saying the latter are a “no.”

[Pato del Muerto 52524]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

If we went with these - plus safe storage laws - I’d be beyond thrilled with that level of action.
Not a bit of that will happen. And we all know who will make sure of that.

 

Could also carve out something where you can have some toys but you have to keep them locked up at a gun club and use them there only.  High cap mags, no problem.  Might even be able to do person to person sales inside the club, brokered by the club. 
 

by the way, when I had chickens the tools I used to keep them safe from raccoons was a fence and a coop.  Some people just like to kill things. 
 

only semi auto I own is a handgun and it has a 15 round capacity, plus 1. (I only keep 13 in the mags and chamber empty) If laws were passed to limit mags, I’d exchange mags without question. If laws were passed to remove semi-autos, I’d have to think about selling it back in favor of a revolver.  
 

not sure I see the difference between a semi auto Glock and a dual action revolver to be honest, if the cartridge capacity was to be made the same.  Reloading, I guess, but I’ve seen people with speed loaders throw 6 more into a wheel gun about as fast as changing mags. 

[CHIEF 5093]

11 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

If there are so many alternatives to the AR-15 that are just as good and can do the same things, why don’t y’all just let the dumbass libs ban the AR-15 to make their feelz better and enjoy all the other guns that are the same? 
 

I am also a brisket level hypocrite in that I own a semi-automatic rifle.  I also think magazine capacity is a smart thing to target. There is no scenario outside of fever dreams of pretend hog-hunters where a high-capacity mag is good for anything except delivering many rounds into human targets. 

I don't know anyone that uses their 30 round mags on an AR, they are too unwieldy. All we carry are 10 round mags anyway. Anytime I see someone "hunting" with a 30 round mag I stay as far away from that idoit as possible.

6 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

Not true. You institute a buy back program for people with now illegal weapons and give a time period for them to either use the buy back program or dispose/permanently destroy them. After that date has passed anyone caught illegally possessing an illegal weapon gets an automatic felony charge as well as loses the right to own guns for 5 years or 10 years or something like that. After the time period they have to take and pass responsible owner classes to gain the right to own guns back. 

I mean shit we do these sorts of things for people to get back the right to drive cars after having their license suspended and driving is far more crucial to making a living for the average American than owning guns. 

That will never pass, anything that makes "now illegal weapons" will never see the light of day. You can't just make millions of gun owners immediate felons, just because they have responsibly owned a piece of property that you don't like.

CHIEF

[Pato del Muerto 52524]

4 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

I don't know anyone that uses their 30 round mags on an AR, they are too unwieldy. All we carry are 10 round mags anyway. Anytime I see someone "hunting" with a 30 round mag I stay as far away from that idoit as possible.

That will never pass, anything that makes "now illegal weapons" will never see the light of day. You can't just make millions of gun owners immediate felons, just because they have responsibly owned a piece of property that you don't like.

CHIEF

Yeah, the only way to get certain types of guns out of America is ban the sale of them and parts for them, and wait for the ones in circulation to irreparably break or be inherited by people who are willing to turn them in. It’s a long, long game. 

[Dahobbs 17625]

21 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

No. I’m trotting out that he slams ARs, but bought a version of one, for which there is no technical difference, other than his is considerably more powerful.  He has lots of other guns. He’s a law abiding gun owner, and should be able to own them all. 

Idiocy like this is why we can't have reasonable compromise. The guy who owns guns, cares about them, and wants reasonable regulation is decried by the guy who says he doesn't care, but for some reason is opposed to regulation. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

10 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

Spoken like a jackass who hasn't fired them. 

There are distinct differences in operation, feel, recoil between them. 

But I'm all for keeping all of them legal just making the legal age 35 and reducing max magazine sizes to 5. 

Bitch please. I gave more than 1 of each less than 100’ from me. 
 

eta: if you’d like, we can add AR10, Garand, 30 carbine and others to that statement, too. 

Edited June 4, 2022 by fattyflattie

[Hermanator 7107]

Just now, CHIEF said:

I don't know anyone that uses their 30 round mags on an AR, they are too unwieldy. All we carry are 10 round mags anyway. Anytime I see someone "hunting" with a 30 round mag I stay as far away from that idoit as possible.

That will never pass, anything that makes "now illegal weapons" will never see the light of day. You can't just make millions of gun owners immediate felons, just because they have responsibly owned a piece of property that you don't like.

CHIEF

First you wouldn't make them immediate felons. You give the buy back program and a grace period time of say 90 days or 180 days to allow responsible law abiding gun owners to be in compliance with the law. Then it's their choice if they want to be felons or not.

In 1920s they did it with alcohol and far more people were addicted to alcohol than guns. They did it with Marijuana at the onset of the great depression. Did it with cocaine, heroin, LSD, etc. They've made fully automatic weapons illegal. Missiles. Explosives. Hand grenades. Most military weaponry is illegal to own now but wasn't always illegal. 

It won't happen because our political system is broken and the people in charge of making the laws get directly funded by large interest groups and corporations. But it could easily happen in a functioning system. 

[CHIEF 5093]

3 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

First you wouldn't make them immediate felons. You give the buy back program and a grace period time of say 90 days or 180 days to allow responsible law abiding gun owners to be in compliance with the law. Then it's their choice if they want to be felons or not.

In 1920s they did it with alcohol and far more people were addicted to alcohol than guns. They did it with Marijuana at the onset of the great depression. Did it with cocaine, heroin, LSD, etc. They've made fully automatic weapons illegal. Missiles. Explosives. Hand grenades. Most military weaponry is illegal to own now but wasn't always illegal. 

It won't happen because our political system is broken and the people in charge of making the laws get directly funded by large interest groups and corporations. But it could easily happen in a functioning system. 

See O'Rourke, Beto and his "your damn right I'm coming for your AR-15s and AK-47s" and what that did to him politically. Any "now illegal" is essentially "coming for your guns". You make fun of those people, but you are proving them right. Was it right to make alcohol illegal? We repealed the 21st amendment. What is your stance on legalizing drugs?

CHIEF

[fattyflattie 4639]

25 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Idiocy like this is why we can't have reasonable compromise. The guy who owns guns, cares about them, and wants reasonable regulation is decried by the guy who says he doesn't care, but for some reason is opposed to regulation. 

Instead of slinging shit, why don’t you find where I’ve ever stated I’m against regulation, or even further regulation. Hint: you’re going to find a lot of the opposite. But I’m certain that won’t stop you from drive by shit posts. 

[Captainant 27680]

11 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Instead of slinging shit, why don’t you find where I’ve ever stated I’m against regulation, or even further regulation. Hint: you’re going to find a lot of the opposite. But I’m certain that won’t stop you from drive by shit posts. 

You're not against regulations, you just have nothing but negative things and slippery slopes to say about them. 

You are consistently in opposition to ANY idea because it may make it harder for you to play with your rooty tooty point and shooty. Because it could hypothetically make it easier for a hypothetical person to be UNFAIRLY accused - nevermind the actual dead children that are the price of the policies you prefer.

[C-Man 27230]

14 hours ago, Born to Run said:

This is disgusting, disingenuous and completely on brand.

I own a Belgian made Browning BAR in 7 mag. It's semi auto with a 4 round capacity. I'm sure I could get a larger magazine for it and destroy the accuracy of my barrel. 3 hogs in one session us plenty thanks. It's an extremely lethal round, far more damaging than 223.

But it's not the same.
This is fucked up to even say, but its less ideal than even a pistol for killing small children. ARs fit the fetishism of these sick fucks, are often fitted with scopes for closer ranges, are designed to rapidly fire at moderate ranges even by untrained shooters. My kid was nailing targets at 11 years old with an AR. Low recoil, and let's again not discount fetishism and the "cool factor" of these weapons. They look like weapons of war and are utilized by sick fuckers wanting to wage war on innocents.

Are they fun? Sure. Is that fun worth the costs? Fuck no.

Forgetting for a second how "similar" these weapons are, how many are out there in circulation? I think there are 20M AR-15's in the US. I'm OK with banning all of them, or at least increasing the age to buy them with stringent background checks and waiting periods, but how many Mini-14's do people have? And M1A's? I would assume far fewer than AR-15's and probably most owned by people who fall out of the usual demographic of mass shooters.

 

11 hours ago, Born to Run said:

My kid was in AISD. Those kids adapted just fine, enjoyed life, and thrived while wearing masks. I would often have to remind my kid he could take his mask off after a few minutes into our commute home. He's not a big ol sensitive ball sack nor are his peers. It wasn't that big of a deal. They don't care that much. Sure My kid is happy to be mask free, sure the chick he kinda crushed on has a jacked grill and looks better masked, Sure Some kids still wear masks and nobody gives a fuck. They are largely kind supportive and go about thier business.

These junk peeping so you can play an amateur sport , culture war starting weirdos need hobbies. Kids are resilient with support.

I noticed the same thing up here in Dallas. The parents complained far more about masks than the kids did.

 

38 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Yeah, the only way to get certain types of guns out of America is ban the sale of them and parts for them, and wait for the ones in circulation to irreparably break or be inherited by people who are willing to turn them in. It’s a long, long game. 

See Roe v. Wade.

[Pam Cummings 9645]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

No. I’m trotting out that he slams ARs, but bought a version of one, for which there is no technical difference, other than his is considerably more powerful.  He has lots of other guns. He’s a law abiding gun owner, and should be able to own them all. 

It's almost as if....and hear me out now....he would be totally down to comply with any and all proposed regulations, rules, and expenses in order to continue to own his firearms.

[Chopper 17238]

4 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Jon Stewarts show on Apple touched on this in re: to domestic violence and how there is definitely some gaps there (a lot of gun violence against women is by domestic abusers).  

Definitely worth a watch.

 

[fattyflattie 4639]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

You're not against regulations, you just have nothing but negative things and slippery slopes to say about them. 

You are consistently in opposition to ANY idea because it may make it harder for you to play with your rooty tooty point and shooty. Because it could hypothetically make it easier for a hypothetical person to be UNFAIRLY accused - nevermind the actual dead children that are the price of the policies you prefer.

Not true. I’m for magazine capacity limits. Background checks. Reasonable wait time (14-21 days?) Even an increase in age to purchase for certain types (say any semiautomatic rifle with >40 grain bullet)  I’ve talked about how we should outlaw binary triggers. I can probably be persuaded into red flag laws, if they offer protection for falsely accused.  Hell, I even said let’s make gun related crimes significantly harsher punishment to take the types who use them illegally off the streets forever.  
 

But no, I’m not OK will banning shit because some politician who can’t even name the super bad bang thingy correctly (shout-out Joey B) thinks they are baddmmkay. I mean, it’s such a huge issue the president of the United States can learn the fucking name of it?  Come on!!1!  
 

You want common sense gun laws?  Tell that to the mouthpieces of gun legislation on the left, SJL and Feinstein have bills they introduce that would leave me to believe you aren’t being truthful about what the D’s actually want. 

[Pato del Muerto 52524]

5 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

laws?  Tell that to the mouthpieces of gun legislation on the left, SJL and Feinstein have bills they introduce that would leave me to believe you aren’t being truthful about what the D’s actually want. 

It’s not a monolithic entity. Different democrats and non-democrats want different things. Just because some people want all guns banned doesn’t mean that all democrats want that but are lying. 
 

and to ascribe the furthest left ideology to everyone on a position is highly disingenuous. 

Edited June 4, 2022 by Pato del Muerto

[Sawbonz 27578]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

No. I’m trotting out that he slams ARs, but bought a version of one, for which there is no technical difference, other than his is considerably more powerful.  He has lots of other guns. He’s a law abiding gun owner, and should be able to own them all. 

Well there is that tiny little difference that one is far and away the favorite of mass murdering psychopaths.

[fattyflattie 4639]

6 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

It’s not a monolithic entity. Different democrats and non-democrats want different things. Just because some people want all guns banned doesn’t mean that all democrats want that but are lying. 
 

and to ascribe the furthest left ideology to everyone on a position is highly disingenuous. 

Oh really?  And the right? Also not a monolithic entity? Or a fascist death cult, as described over and over on this board. Who’s being disingenuous here? 

[Hermanator 7107]

59 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

See O'Rourke, Beto and his "your damn right I'm coming for your AR-15s and AK-47s" and what that did to him politically. Any "now illegal" is essentially "coming for your guns". You make fun of those people, but you are proving them right. Was it right to make alcohol illegal? We repealed the 21st amendment. What is your stance on legalizing drugs?

CHIEF

If you read my other posts I said I wouldn't make them illegal. Had a long post describing the best solution for the problem of public gun violence. 

I was pointing out that it could be done as it's been done many times before for a myriad of things. 

That said it's all moot as the political system in this country has devolved to a point where nothing will get done unless it makes rhe rich richer or at least the most powerful rich richer. Gun violence, like homelessness, isn't a problem with a solution to make the rich richer so it won't get addressed. 

Edited June 4, 2022 by Hermanator

[fattyflattie 4639]

9 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Well there is that tiny little difference that one is far and away the favorite of mass murdering psychopaths.

More drunk drivers choose F150. They are functionally the same as Silverado’s and Tundras, but statistics! Ban em!

Im extremely surprised the highest selling rifle of the last 20 is used the most. 

Edited June 4, 2022 by fattyflattie

[Sawbonz 27578]

44 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Instead of slinging shit, why don’t you find where I’ve ever stated I’m against regulation, or even further regulation. Hint: you’re going to find a lot of the opposite. But I’m certain that won’t stop you from drive by shit posts. 

Well you only vote for people who are against all those things so in effect you are

[Captainant 27680]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Oh really?  And the right? Also not a monolithic entity? Or a fascist death cult, as described over and over on this board. Who’s being disingenuous here? 

No, it's shit like this that makes people say that the republican party in general actively fights against any sort of gun regulation

There is no room for compromise with Republicans on this issue. The last two decades should have provided enough empirical evidence to show that to you

[Sawbonz 27578]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

More drunk drivers choose F150. They are functionally the same as Silverado’s and Tundras, but statistics! Ban em!

Im extremely surprised the highest selling rifle of the last 20 is used the most. 

Show me a link where the percentage of AR is used in mass shootings equals the percentage of overall long gun sales

[Pato del Muerto 52524]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Oh really?  And the right? Also not a monolithic entity? Or a fascist death cult, as described over and over on this board. Who’s being disingenuous here? 

Figured this would be the next reply. No, the right is not a monolithic fascist death cult.  But that is the behavior of the majority, whether they agree to be called that name or not. 
 

whereas the vast majority of democrats want sensible gun restrictions of varying degrees, but you have decided that they are all liars and secretly want to ban all guns like the tiny minority of democrats espouse. 

[Chopper 17238]

8 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Oh really?  And the right? Also not a monolithic entity? Or a fascist death cult, as described over and over on this board. Who’s being disingenuous here? 

Would a monolithic entity push out an elected member of its own party simply because that member, the day after a mass murder in the district he represents, expressed a willingness to accept some gun control provisions? lol @Captainantbeat me to it.

Edited June 4, 2022 by Chopper

[Sawbonz 27578]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

No, it's shit like this that makes people say that the republican party in general actively fights against any sort of gun regulation

There is no room for compromise with Republicans on this issue. The last two decades should have provided enough empirical evidence to show that to you

I mean if you literally just had constituents slaughtered and you can’t speak out for sensible gun control, your party is lost. If I have to choose between gun laws I don’t like and no gun laws, I’m picking gun laws I don’t like every time. Fuck the Republican Party and anybody voting for them

[fattyflattie 4639]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

Show me a link where the percentage of AR is used in mass shootings equals the percentage of overall long gun sales

Are we using “mass shootings” as schools you can think of off the top of your head, or the actual definition (4+ shot). Because you aren’t going to like what you see. 

[Celery Man 20966]

I think people should be able to accurately label all of the parts of the female reproductive system before voicing their dumbassed opinion about abortion if that’s the standard we’re applying here with guns.

Edited June 4, 2022 by Celery Man

[fattyflattie 4639]

4 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

whereas the vast majority of democrats want sensible gun restrictions

Does Betos statements on the subject align with your statement here, in your opinion? 
 

5 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

you have decided that they are all liars and secretly want to ban all guns like the tiny minority of democrats espouse. 

I was told when someone tells you who they are, listen.  That doesn’t work for one side, but not the other.  Sorry. 

[Captainant 27680]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I was told when someone tells you who they are, listen.  That doesn’t work for one side, but not the other.  Sorry. 

Inverting a phrase typically used in relation to fascists to rhetorically link gun regulation advocates with fascists.

That's some top-shelf "I'm totally for more gun regulation" rhetoric. Great work, champ.

[CooterBrown 18014]

I also think you have a voluntary buy back program.  Make it worth people's while to sell their gun back to you.  Also, closing down the gun show loophole is part of it, but you also have to close down the loophole that person to person sales are as well.  That shit happens all the time.

Ban private sales and sales by vendors not at a fixed brick and mortar. No traveling gun shows and no internet sales.

Have a no questions asked buy back program. Hell, even pay retail on the buy back for guns and magazines. Turn them in at your local PD or Sheriff’s office and get a check immediately. Fuck it, allow the seller to take the same amount as an income tax deduction to give them incentive to turn in guns and high capacity magazines.

Ban the transport of high capacity magazines except to a buy back location. If you keep what you already own, they stay where they currently reside. Get pulled over with one, it gets confiscated and you get a receipt to turn in for buy back cash.

Guns and ammo should require a 90 day waiting period for first time buyers and a 30 day for existing gun owners.

[Sawbonz 27578]

6 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Are we using “mass shootings” as schools you can think of off the top of your head, or the actual definition (4+ shot). Because you aren’t going to like what you see. 

How about mass shootings of deliberate soft targets