[Discussion] Mass Shooting at Uvalde Elementary School

[fattyflattie 4636]

1 minute ago, CooterBrown said:

no internet sales.

What does this accomplish if you still have to pick it up at an FFL, like it works now?

[Sawbonz 27375]

6 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

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

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

All you give a shit about is low taxes. It’s OK to admit. We all know. The funny thing is, it’s unlikely the Trump tax cuts helped you all that much.

Edited June 4, 2022 by Sawbonz

[fattyflattie 4636]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

How about mass shootings of deliberate soft targets

So, cherry-picking your stats. Ok I’ll start researching pronto. 

[fattyflattie 4636]

Just now, Sawbonz said:

You give a shit about is low taxes. It’s OK to admit. We all know. The funny thing is, it’s unlikely the Trump tax cuts helped you all that much.

And putting holes into the ground. 

[Dahobbs 17420]

1 hour 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. 

Please good sir, tell me what regulation you would accept. Apparently Brisket isn't allowed to propose anything because he owns guns and is thus a hypocrite for wanting regulation. But you, I'm sure, will be a bastion of reasonableness. 

[Chopper 17126]

17 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).

The "actual definition" is 4+ shot? A definition by once used by the Associated Press, I believe, is 4+ but that's not the same as an actual definition. What's the significance of the distinction in your mind?

Personally I'd start with the same laws passed by Australia. Australia has already shown their laws work and were implemented (edit) ex post facto. If you're serious about the matter of gun control there's no reason to not start there.

Quote

The tough new laws banned the sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns; forced people to present a legitimate reason, and wait 28 days, to buy a firearm; and – perhaps most significantly – called for a massive, mandatory gun-buyback. Australia's government confiscated and destroyed nearly 700,000 firearms, reducing the number of gun-owning households by half.

 

Edited June 4, 2022 by Chopper

[Sawbonz 27375]

5 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

And putting holes into the ground. 

For kids’ coffins?

[Captainant 27311]

6 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

What does this accomplish if you still have to pick it up at an FFL, like it works now?

What does it accomplish? It makes it harder to buy a gun. That needs to be a resulting outcome of any action taken. Otherwise we're just wishcasting thoughts and prayers on the blood and flesh of dead children.

[Sawbonz 27375]

9 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

So, cherry-picking your stats. Ok I’ll start researching pronto. 

Explain how that is cherry picking? All of the current mass shootings in the news are with legally purchased AR 15 style long guns. If you don’t think the gun control laws we are discussing would’ve prevented those, you’re  either a moron or a liar. 

Edited June 4, 2022 by Sawbonz

[Chopper 17126]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

Explain how that is cherry picking? All of the current mass shootings in the news are with legally purchased AR 15 style long guns. If you don’t think the gun control laws we are discussing would’ve prevented those, you’re  either a moron or a liar. 

What are the odds you're giving that he responds with, "It wouldn't matter because none of those triggers pulled themselves."

[Sawbonz 27375]

Just now, Chopper said:

What are the odds you're giving that he responds with, "It wouldn't matter because none of those triggers pulled themselves."

I bet none of them said the pledge at school either. Godless bastards

[fattyflattie 4636]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

Please good sir, tell me what regulation you would accept. Apparently Brisket isn't allowed to propose anything because he owns guns and is thus a hypocrite for wanting regulation. But you, I'm sure, will be a bastion of reasonableness. 

It’s all over this thread, and many others, as recent as the previous page.  And I’m fine with most of what he’s proposed in the past. 
 

I  just find it a bit too much when Brisket comes in and condemns things, when as noted, he purchased at the request of his 17 yo son, who by his words, has been potentially depressed, a semiautomatic, actual weapon of war.  This actual battlefield weapon shoots a more destructive and powerful round than the ones he’s condemning.  Most posters on this thread don’t know that, because while condemning one particular weapon he doesn’t care for, he forgets to mention he basically did everything he’s condemned. Purchase a young male a semiautomatic rifle, check. Person has depression issues, ? Rifle is actual weapon designed and used in war, unlike the mighty AR 15.
 

I know this because the other side of his coin is over on the gun owners thread talking about it.  So please excuse me if the hypocrisy is a bit too much.  It’s a lie by omission to appear reasonable to whatever side he’s hosting at that moment. 
 

So, if the next school shooter gets into his parents safe with a crowbar and grinder, and shoots up the school, how are we doing to feel when it comes out it was purchased for him as a minor, his parents knew he had “depression” issues, and knowingly bought and taught him how to operate a “weapon of war”.  It’s cool because I don’t own anything other than 5 rounds mags for it is not good enough to denigrate one and not the other. 

[Brisketexan 104465]

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? 

See below. The proof is not in the rhetoric - it’s in the pudding.

The NRA - a group funded and manipulated in large part by a foreign actor hostile to the continuation of our republic, by the way - and the GQP are full on conjoined twins. Each is a political arm of the other and, as a result - this is the important part - oppose any and all gun regulations. All of them. There have been no meaningful gun law reforms in THIRTY YEARS, at the behest of one party and one party only.

Actions speak. See below….

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

It is demonstrably impossible to 1) be a GQP official and 2) support any new gun regulation. That’s on you, dude.

[CHIEF 5057]

13 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Please good sir, tell me what regulation you would accept. Apparently Brisket isn't allowed to propose anything because he owns guns and is thus a hypocrite for wanting regulation. But you, I'm sure, will be a bastion of reasonableness. 

Some of you apparently don't read anything on this thread since your last post. FF clearly said what he would accept on the last page. 

CHIEF

[fattyflattie 4636]

13 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

For kids’ coffins?

Surly af. Well done. 
 

11 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

shootings in the news

Huh. Since I’ve never known any news outlets to have any agendas, I guess I’ll just take your word for it. There’s a city that can’t be mentioned that might blow up your AR hate boner, if you care to look. How many ARs in the shootings that left 21 injured in Milwaukee 2 weeks ago? Another at a McDonald’s 2 weeks ago with a glock, iirc.  
 

I know, I know.  Does 9=21 kids you kid hating bastard and all that. Is Milwaukee even in the same state as Ulvalde, you kid hating bastard.  
 

 

[Sawbonz 27375]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Surly af. Well done. 
 

Huh. Since I’ve never known any news outlets to have any agendas, I guess I’ll just take your word for it. There’s a city that can’t be mentioned that might blow up your AR hate boner, if you care to look. How many ARs in the shootings that left 21 injured in Milwaukee 2 weeks ago? Another at a McDonald’s 2 weeks ago with a glock, iirc.  
 

I know, I know.  Does 9=21 kids you kid hating bastard and all that. Is Milwaukee even in the same state as Ulvalde, you kid hating bastard.  
 

 

Do you think there might be different causes of and therefore different solutions to the gun violence in targeted mass shootings of soft targets vs what happens weekly in Chicago or Milwaukee, Dallas, Baltimore etc? Do you think if we can’t solve both we shouldn’t try to fix either? I’m leaning away from the liar option 

[Dahobbs 17420]

11 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

It’s all over this thread, and many others, as recent as the previous page.  And I’m fine with most of what he’s proposed in the past. 
 

I  just find it a bit too much when Brisket comes in and condemns things, when as noted, he purchased at the request of his 17 yo son, who by his words, has been potentially depressed, a semiautomatic, actual weapon of war.  This actual battlefield weapon shoots a more destructive and powerful round than the ones he’s condemning.  Most posters on this thread don’t know that, because while condemning one particular weapon he doesn’t care for, he forgets to mention he basically did everything he’s condemned. Purchase a young male a semiautomatic rifle, check. Person has depression issues, ? Rifle is actual weapon designed and used in war, unlike the mighty AR 15.
 

I know this because the other side of his coin is over on the gun owners thread talking about it.  So please excuse me if the hypocrisy is a bit too much.  It’s a lie by omission to appear reasonable to whatever side he’s hosting at that moment. 
 

So, if the next school shooter gets into his parents safe with a crowbar and grinder, and shoots up the school, how are we doing to feel when it comes out it was purchased for him as a minor, his parents knew he had “depression” issues, and knowingly bought and taught him how to operate a “weapon of war”.  It’s cool because I don’t own anything other than 5 rounds mags for it is not good enough to denigrate one and not the other. 

So you're not against Brisket's proposals, you're just against him being the one to propose it. And you'll happily explain why his proposals are bad, but again, you're not against them. Sure Jan. Sure. 

[Sawbonz 27375]

At the end of the day it doesn’t matter what any of us are for it matters what the people we pull the lever for are for. At this moment in history, pulling the lever for republicans means higher likelihood of mass shootings of soft targets. Eventually it’s going to hit home. The guy who cuts my parents’ grass had a niece killed In Uvalde. The surgeon killed in Tulsa was a friend of my partners. 

Edited June 4, 2022 by Sawbonz

[Pato del Muerto 52322]

37 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

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

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

Put my phone down for a bit. Against my better judgement I’ll answer your first question in good faith. 
 

the only comment I’ve read from beto is the “hell yeah we are coming for your ar15.”  So the next question is what is defined as “sensible” gun restrictions. Some would say banning ar15s themselves and all guns like them (also nebulous and in need of clarification) is sensible, some would not. But it’s a fact that that position is not anywhere close to “ban all guns.”  
 

do I approve?  I wouldn’t be against it but its not a hard line for me. Restrict magazine capacity on them. Maybe if it’s the round energy that is the problem, work on defining rounds that can be used in a semiauto platform.  Want them for hunting?  3-5 round max. 
 

as to the second part, you are still ascribing “ban all guns” to all gun control people. Even though the vast majority are telling you they don’t want to ban all guns. You aren’t listening. 

[Js1 85056]

He’s never gonna agree or listen to y’all. Or engage productively without pulling you off topic or into arguments about the definition of something. He’s a good little foot soldier doing his party bosses proud. 

Edited June 4, 2022 by Js1

[bonnieblue 542]

Remove all guns from men and give them consolation meat smokers or golf clubs and bows/arrows. Presto, 99% of mass shootings resolved. 

[fattyflattie 4636]

23 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Do you think there might be different causes of and therefore different solutions to the gun violence in targeted mass shootings of soft targets vs what happens weekly in Chicago or Milwaukee, Dallas, Baltimore etc? Do you think if we can’t solve both we shouldn’t try to fix either? I’m leaning away from the liar option 

Of course they are different. There’s plenty of sensible regulations being discussed. There also a bunch of bullshit. And theres a bunch of people who don’t care about the rights of the 2nd, and a bunch of folks who do.  
 

12 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

the only comment I’ve read from beto is the “hell yeah we are coming for your ar15.”  So the next question is what is defined as “sensible” gun restrictions. Some would say banning ar15s themselves and all guns like them (also nebulous and in need of clarification) is sensible, some would not. But it’s a fact that that position is not anywhere close to “ban all guns.”  

Lest we not forget AK47’s in his quote. Why he even mentioned those is anyone’s guess. I’d assume those two models are the ones he knows.  You are correct, it doesn’t mean ban all guns.  But if you open the door on outright banning those, there can be made arguments for semi auto pistols, other semiautomatic rifles, shotguns. Fuck anything can be tied back to it. You want to tie it to high energy rounds or velocity, well there goes deer rifles, too.  High capacity, well there goes your grandfathers .22. 
 

17 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

as to the second part, you are still ascribing “ban all guns” to all gun control people.

Wrong. The politicians, absolutely. 
 

 

[Herbie Hancock 7302]

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

At no point in time have you ever been able to purchase a firearm directly from the internet. Never.

[aggie08 21380]

Once again, fatty. What machinations does the Democratic party have in place to come after your guns once they finally get their foot in the door with some modest, common sense regulations? If another round of proposed regulations follow that goes too far, the entire GOP will reunite to stonewall it. And, judging by the past few decades, they're pretty fucking good at that, no?

Continuing to use the extreme views in the gun control advocacy group as an excuse to continually do fucking nothing is cowardice, and it makes everyone who supports and enables it culpable. Point blank. Try to rationalize it all you want, but you're not even fooling yourself at this point. You don't really care, and you never will. Nothing happens because one side makes it so.

"They don't even know all the proper semantics! Beto! Feinstein!" Get the fuck out of here with this shit. Enabler.

 

[Pato del Muerto 52322]

9 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Of course they are different. There’s plenty of sensible regulations being discussed. There also a bunch of bullshit. And theres a bunch of people who don’t care about the rights of the 2nd, and a bunch of folks who do.  
 

Lest we not forget AK47’s in his quote. Why he even mentioned those is anyone’s guess. I’d assume those two models are the ones he knows.  You are correct, it doesn’t mean ban all guns.  But if you open the door on outright banning those, there can be made arguments for semi auto pistols, other semiautomatic rifles, shotguns. Fuck anything can be tied back to it. You want to tie it to high energy rounds or velocity, well there goes deer rifles, too.  High capacity, well there goes your grandfathers .22. 
 

Wrong. The politicians, absolutely. 
 

 

This is the issue, people on the on side use the slippery slope argument to prevent even the smallest restriction. 
 

like I already typed, hunting rifles can be high energy rounds. They don’t also need to be high capacity. My 4 round 30-06 is fine. Someone wants to hunt with an AR platform, they can have a similar capacity limit either in a physically smaller cartridge or a law as with shotguns for birds. Or both. 
 

big giant slugs in a revolver or shotgun? Fine.  
 

you want an AR with 30 round mags for fun?  Ok, those stay at the gun club for use at the gun club.  You want one at home to use on your ranch land- ok but there’s a lot of regulations to follow for their storage and use, and real teeth to them if you fail. 

Edited June 4, 2022 by Pato del Muerto

[fattyflattie 4636]

2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

This is the issue, people on the on side use the slippery slope argument to prevent even the smallest restriction. 
 

like I already typed, hunting rifles can be high energy rounds. They don’t also need to be high capacity. My 4 round 30-06 is fine. Someone wants to hunt with an AR platform, they can have a similar capacity limit either in a physically smaller cartridge or a law as with shotguns for birds. Or both. 
 

big giant slugs in a revolver or shotgun? Fine.  
 

you want an AR with 30 round mags for fun?  Ok, those stay at the gun club for use at the gun club.  You want one at home to use on your ranch land- ok but there’s a lot of regulations to follow for their storage and use, and real teeth to them if you fail. 

I’m fine with all of that. Can you ensure me that’s where it’s going to stop? 

[fattyflattie 4636]

3 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

They don't even know all the proper semantics! Beto! Feinstein!" Get the fuck out of here with this shit. Enabler.

 

Those are your sides chosen voices. Maybe tell them to sit down and shut up, if they are hurting your message. I don’t have to accept Ted Cruz and Boebert while you get to ignore your trash. 

[Pato del Muerto 52322]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

I’m fine with all of that. Can you ensure me that’s where it’s going to stop? 

I personally can’t ensure shit. If that sufficiently reduces the events that generate the push for them, why would more restrictions be pushed for?  If they don’t, people will probably advocate for more. At that point, we see how many are for and how many against. At least that’s how it should work. 

[fattyflattie 4636]

6 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Once again, fatty. What machinations does the Democratic party have in place to come after your guns once they finally get their foot in the door with some modest, common sense regulations?

It’s covered pretty well upthread. Turn this, that, and the other in within 90 days or it’s a felony. That seems like a pretty solid way to come after them. For most on this site, who have a lot to lose, that’s all it would take.  You tell me it’s only 30 round mags or such and such platform now, but do you believe that?  

[Chopper 17126]

56 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I  just find it a bit too much when Brisket comes in and condemns things, when as noted, he purchased at the request of his 17 yo son, who by his words, has been potentially depressed, a semiautomatic, actual weapon of war.  This actual battlefield weapon shoots a more destructive and powerful round than the ones he’s condemning.  

I realize you're an expert of firearms and all, but what's the functional difference between a civilian firing a M16 with the automatic function turned off (as they're generally used by the Marines) and a AR-15. Or an AR-15 with a bump stock, and a M16? Hint, either way: Zero point zero.

What's more important, whether it's an "actual weapon of war" (quite the fucking frother phrase!) or whether some 18 year old with his finger on the trigger makes LEO cower in fear, whether the shooter is wearing body armor or not?

I'll wait.

[Captainant 27311]

7 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I’m fine with all of that. Can you ensure me that’s where it’s going to stop? 

Well the alternative is continuing to do nothing and/or making it even easier to buy and carry a gun.

And since I don't much like children being shot up in their classroom and I've been watching it happen for literally my entire life... Yeah I kind of don't care at this point if it doesn't stop there. We've pretty well demonstrated that our society is less safe with more guns in it. Fewer guns that are harder to acquire means fewer guns in the hands of teenagers marching into civil unrest or into a classroom.

[aggie08 21380]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

It’s covered pretty well upthread. Turn this, that, and the other in within 90 days or it’s a felony. That seems like a pretty solid way to come after them. For most on this site, who have a lot to lose, that’s all it would take.  You tell me it’s only 30 round mags or such and such platform now, but do you believe that?  

And how the fuck are they ever going to get something like that passed, even if it is their secret agenda all along? 60 votes? An executive order that the Supreme Court won't immediately overturn? Fucking please. You're embarrassing yourself more than usual.

[fattyflattie 4636]

2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I personally can’t ensure shit. If that sufficiently reduces the events that generate the push for them, why would more restrictions be pushed for?  If they don’t, people will probably advocate for more. At that point, we see how many are for and how many against. At least that’s how it should work. 

I know you can’t, I don’t expect you to. But the president of the fucking United States can’t even name the platform correctly. That doesn’t give you any pause?  That maybe they don’t really know what the fuck about any of this?  But, let’s trust them start what could be a major erosion of our rights. 
 

it’s not that hard. 
 

Bill #1 - must be 21/25 whatever to buy semiautomatic rifle.
 

Sorry for you .22 shooters, freedom isn’t free.   That’s it. No bridge in some WV district, or Arizona, or whatever the fuck.  put it to vote. See who doesn’t vote for it. Take them to task. 
 

Bill #2 - must have trigger locks and safe in household with firearms of xxx details.  Govt will apply X amount of money or tax credit or something to help ease burden.    That’s it. No new highway or safe drug kits attached. See who doesn’t vote for it, take them to task.    
 

we can immediately become safer with laws that don’t affect any single particular make and model of firearm. 
 

 

[aggie08 21380]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

I know you can’t, I don’t expect you to. But the president of the fucking United States can’t even name the platform correctly. That doesn’t give you any pause?  That maybe they don’t really know what the fuck about any of this?  But, let’s trust them start what could be a major erosion of our rights. 
 

it’s not that hard. 
 

Bill #1 - must be 21/25 whatever to buy semiautomatic rifle.
 

Sorry for you .22 shooters, freedom isn’t free.   That’s it. No bridge in some WV district, or Arizona, or whatever the fuck.  put it to vote. See who doesn’t vote for it. Take them to task. 
 

Bill #2 - must have trigger locks and safe in household with firearms of xxx details.  Govt will apply X amount of money or tax credit or something to help ease burden.    That’s it. No new highway or safe drug kits attached. See who doesn’t vote for it, take them to task.    
 

we can immediately become safer with laws that don’t affect any single particular make and model of firearm. 
 

 

Then how about the gun experts in the GOP reach across the aisle to help with the verbiage to make it more palatable instead of excommunicating those within their party who even consider giving an inch in heavily conservative states like...checks notes...New York. Jesus fucking Christ.

[Captainant 27311]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I know you can’t, I don’t expect you to. But the president of the fucking United States can’t even name the platform correctly. That doesn’t give you any pause?  That maybe they don’t really know what the fuck about any of this?  But, let’s trust them start what could be a major erosion of our rights. 
 

it’s not that hard. 
 

Bill #1 - must be 21/25 whatever to buy semiautomatic rifle.
 

Sorry for you .22 shooters, freedom isn’t free.   That’s it. No bridge in some WV district, or Arizona, or whatever the fuck.  put it to vote. See who doesn’t vote for it. Take them to task. 
 

Bill #2 - must have trigger locks and safe in household with firearms of xxx details.  Govt will apply X amount of money or tax credit or something to help ease burden.    That’s it. No new highway or safe drug kits attached. See who doesn’t vote for it, take them to task.    
 

we can immediately become safer with laws that don’t affect any single particular make and model of firearm. 

Tell ya what champ: why don't you try contacting your legislators and representatives and let us know how that goes? From someone who's made a real effort post 2016 to get more engaged in civics, I can tell you that you're not going to get a response from anyone inside of 6 months unless you're writing them a fat check.

And if they do get back to you, it'll be a form letter thats not even for the subject you wrote them about. It's a remarkable consistency across email and written/stamped correspondence in my experience for our federal legislators.

[Pato del Muerto 52322]

8 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I know you can’t, I don’t expect you to. But the president of the fucking United States can’t even name the platform correctly. That doesn’t give you any pause?  That maybe they don’t really know what the fuck about any of this?  But, let’s trust them start what could be a major erosion of our rights. 
 

it’s not that hard. 
 

Bill #1 - must be 21/25 whatever to buy semiautomatic rifle.
 

Sorry for you .22 shooters, freedom isn’t free.   That’s it. No bridge in some WV district, or Arizona, or whatever the fuck.  put it to vote. See who doesn’t vote for it. Take them to task. 
 

Bill #2 - must have trigger locks and safe in household with firearms of xxx details.  Govt will apply X amount of money or tax credit or something to help ease burden.    That’s it. No new highway or safe drug kits attached. See who doesn’t vote for it, take them to task.    
 

we can immediately become safer with laws that don’t affect any single particular make and model of firearm. 
 

 

Or, here’s a radical idea. Put it in the form of a constitutional amendment and let the people vote directly whether or not to give up/limit one of their constitutional granted rights.  
 

let’s see who is willing to vote for their belief. Make it several degrees and we can vote against them all or for varying levels up to and including total ban. And if total bam passes, then the people have spoken.  Or make it a states rights issue so that states can choose. 
 

except for the whole fake voter fraud thing that is the mechanism du jour to argue against vote results. 
 

 

Edited June 4, 2022 by Pato del Muerto

[royiv 9131]

7 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I know you can’t, I don’t expect you to. But the president of the fucking United States can’t even name the platform correctly. That doesn’t give you any pause?  That maybe they don’t really know what the fuck about any of this?  But, let’s trust them start what could be a major erosion of our rights. 
 

it’s not that hard. 
 

Bill #1 - must be 21/25 whatever to buy semiautomatic rifle.
 

Sorry for you .22 shooters, freedom isn’t free.   That’s it. No bridge in some WV district, or Arizona, or whatever the fuck.  put it to vote. See who doesn’t vote for it. Take them to task. 
 

Bill #2 - must have trigger locks and safe in household with firearms of xxx details.  Govt will apply X amount of money or tax credit or something to help ease burden.    That’s it. No new highway or safe drug kits attached. See who doesn’t vote for it, take them to task.    
 

we can immediately become safer with laws that don’t affect any single particular make and model of firearm. 
 

 

If it's not that hard, why has it not been done? It's clearly very hard. It's hard to engage with the other side on any form of legislation when the other side's starting point is that they will not consider any changes. Did you happen to watch any of the televised meetings this week? One side refuses to engage on anything meaningful. What are you going to do in future elections to hold those folks accountable?

[aggie08 21380]

Just now, royiv said:

One side refuses to engage on anything meaningful. What are you going to do in future elections to hold those folks accountable?

[this is where we throw our heads back in laughter.gif]

[butthurt 1517]

33 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Of course they are different. There’s plenty of sensible regulations being discussed. There also a bunch of bullshit. And theres a bunch of people who don’t care about the rights of the 2nd, and a bunch of folks who do.  
 

Lest we not forget AK47’s in his quote. Why he even mentioned those is anyone’s guess. I’d assume those two models are the ones he knows.  You are correct, it doesn’t mean ban all guns.  But if you open the door on outright banning those, there can be made arguments for semi auto pistols, other semiautomatic rifles, shotguns. Fuck anything can be tied back to it. You want to tie it to high energy rounds or velocity, well there goes deer rifles, too.  High capacity, well there goes your grandfathers .22. 
 

Wrong. The politicians, absolutely. 
 

 

Unless I'm miss reading this, Beto mentioned Ak47s because that was the weapon the El Paso shooter used.

[fattyflattie 4636]

1 minute ago, butthurt said:

Unless I'm miss reading this, Beto mentioned Ak47s because that was the weapon the El Paso shooter used.

Probably so, thanks.   

[fattyflattie 4636]

7 minutes ago, royiv said:

If it's not that hard, why has it not been done? It's clearly very hard.

I’d agree. Leaving pork and needless bullshit out of bill appears to be extremely difficult. 

[royiv 9131]

37 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Those are your sides chosen voices. Maybe tell them to sit down and shut up, if they are hurting your message. I don’t have to accept Ted Cruz and Boebert while you get to ignore your trash. 

Please point me in the direction of where Feinstein or Beto have openly supported insurrection or voted against the certification of a free and fair election. 

[fattyflattie 4636]

2 minutes ago, royiv said:

Please point me in the direction of where Feinstein or Beto have openly supported insurrection or voted against the certification of a free and fair election. 

Don’t strain your back, I’ll help you move the posts to whatever the fuck this post is. 

[royiv 9131]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Don’t strain your back, I’ll help you move the posts to whatever the fuck this post is. 

You can’t be serious. You may not like their policies, but there is a massive difference between disagreeing with one’s positions and supporting the overthrow of our democracy. Free and fair elections and the peaceful transition of power are the bedrocks of our democracy. Without that, none of the other stuff matters.

[aggie08 21380]

16 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I’d agree. Leaving pork and needless bullshit out of bill appears to be extremely difficult. 

Ohhhhh it's the pork that's keeping the GOP from doing literally anything. Why didn't you just say so?????

Pathetic.

Democrats would literally trip over themselves to sign the most modest of  gun bills if a few GOP members were actually willing to reach across the aisle, just so they could put it on their next reelection ad that they accomplished something. Anything.

You've used slippery slope, semantics, and pork. What's the next excuse on the pamphlet?

[fattyflattie 4636]

43 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Democrats would literally trip over themselves to sign the most modest of  gun bills

I keep hearing that. Not seeing it, but yeah, they would, if…

[BurntOrange&White 39486]

It’s funny the party so obsessed with their second amendment rights are actively trying to remove rights of gays, women, and people of color. 

[FartingMonk 3606]

1 hour ago, Chopper said:

I realize you're an expert of firearms and all, but what's the functional difference between a civilian firing a M16 with the automatic function turned off (as they're generally used by the Marines) and a AR-15. Or an AR-15 with a bump stock, and a M16? Hint, either way: Zero point zero.

What's more important, whether it's an "actual weapon of war" (quite the fucking frother phrase!) or whether some 18 year old with his finger on the trigger makes LEO cower in fear, whether the shooter is wearing body armor or not?

I'll wait.

I will disagree with you on the point that there is no difference between a bump stock and a full auto.  I've shot both and I will say a gun equipped with a bump stock should be illegal.  You have absolutely no control of where the bullets go.  It just shoots bullets really fast.  A full auto you have pretty good control.  

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19074]

3 hours 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? 

 

4 hours 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

Whole thread in the Cloak Room is this is where you want to debate this.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19074]

3 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

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. 

Take this shit to the Cloak Room.  Reported.