Gun Control

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

6 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

I tend to agree with this. And as I opined on the old site, gun advocates need to get in on this conversation or they may find themselves without a seat at the negotiating table in the future. 

I did get in on the conversation. I have brought my viewpoint to the table. Some of y'all (not necessarily you) dont like that I wont accept infringement on our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. That doesnt mean Im not at the table, it means I will not bend to weak ineffective regulations and arguments. Show me something that might actually work and doesnt infringe on the rights of the citizenry and let's talk. 

[deadshank 24,654]

3 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

When you say "I think everyone telling me x is lying, and they really want y," how is it you think a conversation about x is even possible? You aren't having a conversation about x, you are having a conversation about y, because you think that's what the other party is doing, even if they really are wanting to talk about x. Therefore, you don't have to say, "we need to stop talking about x," because you were never talking about x to begin with.

Again, I never said "everyone."  I typed "a lot" and that may be incorrect.  Perhaps I should have typed "some." 

 I don't mind having a discussion about it, as evidenced by posting on this thread. 

Do you really believe that "some" of those advocating for "just a little bit more gun control" are willing to stop at whatever point that is?  Sure, "some" will stop at that point because that is where they want to stop. Others won't and they see "just a little more gun control"  as a  stepping stone to continue on with more and more to the point of outright ban and potential confiscation; all the while realizing and being cunning enough to not actually state in the beginning what their end game is.  Others are outright banners from the get go and they are at least a respectable and known adversary.

Why is saying and thinking this so controversial?  Every one of you has listened to and read the words of some politician or advocate and have not taken their words at face value and in the back of your mind thought they were lying and not telling you the truth about what they really want.   What's wrong with being skeptical?  I guess its wrong when someone is skeptical about a position those calling me out agree with.

 

  

[bernorange 8,385]

There were a lot of gun owners "in on the conversation" on the old site/thread.  That was a long thread and shit got repeated over and over again.  How many times does a gun owner need to repeat themselves when "gun control advocates" keep regurgitating the same arguments that had already been hashed out numerous times.  When a new news story broke you would see new folks pop in the thread who obviously had not read any of it because they would repeat the same arguments ("talking points" if you have a partisan bent) that had been discussed many times before.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

2 minutes ago, bernorange said:

There were a lot of gun owners "in on the conversation" on the old site/thread.  That was a long thread and shit got repeated over and over again.  How many times does a gun owner need to repeat themselves when "gun control advocates" keep regurgitating the same arguments that had already been hashed out numerous times.  When a new news story broke you would see new folks pop in the thread who obviously had not read any of it because they would repeat the same arguments ("talking points" if you have a partisan bent) that had been discussed many times before.

All true, much of the behavior is media driven because the conversation comes up across all media outlets after a massacre.  

However, I think we're starting to see some gun owners come around to considering sensible legislation regarding guns.

People can change their minds on how best to approach the issue. 

[Aqua Buddha 14,782]

1 hour ago, thrillhammer said:

since access to both abortion and guns are constitutional rights, a valid comparison. let's go ahead and compare their two budgets.  in 2015  the nra paid wayne lapierre $5.1 million. planned parenthood paid cecile richards $524k.  nice.   if you wanted to compare their campaign contributions this won't end well for you.

The NRA also takes in more foreign money than PP so there's that.

[Anastasis 23,699]

I can really only speak for myself, but I 

Just now, Aqua Buddha said:

The NRA also takes in more foreign money than PP so there's that.

Is that right?  Planned Parenthood has an international presence.

I wonder which organization gets more US public funding?

Edited March 28, 2018 by Anastasis

[Aqua Buddha 14,782]

Just now, Anastasis said:

I can really only speak for myself, but I 

Is that right?  Planned Parenthood has an international presence.

I wonder which organization gets more US public funding?

Does PP take foreign money and use it for domestic lobbying like the NRA does?  Why is the NRA taking money from Russia in the first place?

[bernorange 8,385]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

...However, I think we're starting to see some gun owners come around to considering sensible legislation regarding guns....

"sensible legislation"  - You probably don't realize it, but that's a very loaded way to characterize a proposal.  There is an implication that if you don't agree with it, you aren't sensible. That's a bullshit way to discuss anything.  I would much prefer to discuss "legislation" on it's merits and we can all form our own opinions on whether or not it is "sensible".  What legislation are you favoring/championing?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

1 minute ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Does PP take foreign money and use it for domestic lobbying like the NRA does?  Why is the NRA taking money from Russia in the first place?

The NRA has a very powerful media operation going on right now.

Just youtube any firearm related instructional or review video and see what ads pop up...It's insane. 

[Aqua Buddha 14,782]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The NRA has a very powerful media operation going on right now.

Just youtube any firearm related instructional or review video and see what ads pop up...It's insane. 

Yeah, if Russia wanted to fund a large group in America that promoted fear and civil unrest with a potential of armed rebellion, they wouldn't get better ROI than the NRA.  The NRA had armed protestors screaming at teenagers this weekend for God's sake.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

7 minutes ago, bernorange said:

"sensible legislation"  - You probably don't realize it, but that's a very loaded way to characterize a proposal.  There is an implication that if you don't agree with it, you aren't sensible. That's a bullshit way to discuss anything.  I would much prefer to discuss "legislation" on it's merits and we can all form our own opinions on whether or not it is "sensible".  What legislation are you favoring/championing?

I already laid out what I'd like to see done but I'll fine tune it:

Prohibit the sale of magazines over 15 rounds for handguns and rifles (15 so standard mags for some handguns are not affected.) Would be open to 10 rounds for rifles as well. 

Expand background checks to apply to gun shows.  (I'm not sure on how to best approach the P2P sale issue but I'm open)

I'd even be open to a nominal waiting period. 

 

Edited March 28, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

2 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Yeah, if Russia wanted to fund a large group in America that promoted fear and civil unrest with a potential of armed rebellion, they wouldn't get better ROI than the NRA.  The NRA had armed protestors screaming at teenagers this weekend for God's sake.

[udaydanceparty 33]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I already laid out what I'd like to see done but I'll fine tune it:

Prohibit the sale of magazines over 15 rounds for handguns and rifles (15 so standard mags for some handguns are not affected.) Would be open to 10 rounds for rifles as well. 

Expand background checks to apply to gun shows.  (I'm not sure on how to best approach the P2P sale issue but I'm open)

I'd even be open to a nominal waiting period. 

 

Why 15?  Is there any sort of evidence that a 15 round mag would lead to a lower number of fatalities?  Seem arbitrary. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Just now, udaydanceparty said:

Why 15?  Is there any sort of evidence that a 15 round mag would lead to a lower number of fatalities?  Seem arbitrary. 

Lives have been saved simply because a shooter had to reload, not complicated. 

I picked 15 because I know that is a standard mag capacity for some handguns. 

[Aqua Buddha 14,782]

8 minutes ago, bernorange said:

"sensible legislation"  - You probably don't realize it, but that's a very loaded way to characterize a proposal.  There is an implication that if you don't agree with it, you aren't sensible. That's a bullshit way to discuss anything.  I would much prefer to discuss "legislation" on it's merits and we can all form our own opinions on whether or not it is "sensible".  What legislation are you favoring/championing?

Here's my idea:

Have something similar to TSA pre check.  If you pass a thorough background check and an in person interview, you have a five year pass to buy assault rifles and high capacity magazines. You'd still be able to buy handguns and hunting type rifles without it but with your pre check like pass, you could buy whatever you want without any waiting period.

That would keep the crazy people from buying an AR-15 at an Academy for one thing and no one's "rights" are taken away.

I'd also like to see restrictions on high capacity magazines.  Assault rifles and what not are only a side issue.  The Virginia Tech shooter showed that you can do equivalent damage with handguns as long as you have the large magazines.  There are people alive today that are alive because a shooter had to reload.

Sadly, the NRA won't even consider either of these.....

[TahoeHorn 107]

There could be some productive discussion about gun control.  But I don't think people want one, and many people can't hold a productive discussion on anything.

I am nominally in the "pro gun" camp but would entertain any gun control proposal I thought would benefit the nation.  But every proposal I hear is simple-minded and affects law abiding citizens while not impacting the criminals.

One  simple-minded proposal I hear is an "assault weapons ban".  The last one we had didn't work.  And it was idiotic.  It was idiotic because it had a definition of an assault weapon which was absolutely silly.  The proponents of the bill knew it was silly but did it to appease their angry constituents who didn't know better.  They were played.  Until you precisely define assault weapons the proposal has no meaning.  And there is no definition that will have an impact without severely impacting lawful gun owners who want a gun for legitimate purposes.  The difference between a hunting rifle and a scary looking gun is just cosmetics.

The devil is in the details, and the proponents know that an honest proposal would never pass.  They know the only way to pass a bill is an emotional stampede to pass something that is toothless.  Just like before.

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

5 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Here's my idea:

Have something similar to TSA pre check.  If you pass a thorough background check and an in person interview, you have a five year pass to buy assault rifles and high capacity magazines. You'd still be able to buy handguns and hunting type rifles without it but with your pre check like pass, you could buy whatever you want without any waiting period.

That would keep the crazy people from buying an AR-15 at an Academy for one thing and no one's "rights" are taken away.

I'd also like to see restrictions on high capacity magazines.  Assault rifles and what not are only a side issue.  The Virginia Tech shooter showed that you can do equivalent damage with handguns as long as you have the large magazines.  There are people alive today that are alive because a shooter had to reload.

Sadly, the NRA won't even consider either of these.....

A 5 year pass? And that means you would need a registry to track that. No thanks. 

[Anastasis 23,699]

Just now, Aqua Buddha said:

Does PP take foreign money and use it for domestic lobbying like the NRA does?  Why is the NRA taking money from Russia in the first place?

If NRA-PAC took money from Russia, I am pretty sure that is illegal, and they should be prosecuted. 

We do know that the International Planned Parenthood Foundation takes both international and US funding (or has in the past based on EO, which have are not influenced by lobbying at all amiright); and we know that domestically planned parenthood receives public funding. Likewise, if their is evidence that PP-PAC received foreign funding they should be investigated and prosecuted. 

 

/derail over.  this is a total tangent. 

[Anastasis 23,699]

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I already laid out what I'd like to see done but I'll fine tune it:

Prohibit the sale of magazines over 15 rounds for handguns and rifles (15 so standard mags for some handguns are not affected.) Would be open to 10 rounds for rifles as well. 

Expand background checks to apply to gun shows.  (I'm not sure on how to best approach the P2P sale issue but I'm open)

I'd even be open to a nominal waiting period. 

 

Gun shows arent the issue. Background checks apply to all sale between FFLs and public, whether it takes place at gun show or not.  P2P transaction between individuals requires no NICS check, whether they take place at a gun show or not. 

I would not be opposed to requiring NICS checks on personal tranfers, as long as those transfers are provided by FFLs at no charge and/or private individuals are given access to teh NICS system. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

I also wouldn’t be opposed to raising the age limit to 21 on all firearm sales.

I understand my proposals are only nominal measures to reduce deaths from gun violence but I think they’re worth the cost, all things considered.

Edited March 28, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[TahoeHorn 107]

I'd like to combine the background s

7 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Here's my idea:

Have something similar to TSA pre check.  If you pass a thorough background check and an in person interview, you have a five year pass to buy assault rifles and high capacity magazines. You'd still be able to buy handguns and hunting type rifles without it but with your pre check like pass, you could buy whatever you want without any waiting period.

That would keep the crazy people from buying an AR-15 at an Academy for one thing and no one's "rights" are taken away.

I'd also like to see restrictions on high capacity magazines.  Assault rifles and what not are only a side issue.  The Virginia Tech shooter showed that you can do equivalent damage with handguns as long as you have the large magazines.  There are people alive today that are alive because a shooter had to reload.

Sadly, the NRA won't even consider either of these.....

I'll go for that with one amendment.  I'd like your "TSA pre-check" to be the basis for a "good citizenship card" which has multiple uses.  You need it to buy a gun; you need it to avoid thorough checking when flying a plane and you need it to vote.  It's possible that the rare person might qualify to do one but not the other but the background check should be consolidated.  I don't want one type of background check (e.g. to buy a gun) to encounter high cost and delays, while another (e.g. voter registration) to be a quick farce or non-existent.  We need to be sure that people with a "good citizen card" aren't felons, aren't mentally ill and so on.  Support me on my voter check and I'll support you on your gun check.  Deal?

[bernorange 8,385]

15 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I already laid out what I'd like to see done but I'll fine tune it:

Prohibit the sale of magazines over 15 rounds for handguns and rifles (15 so standard mags for some handguns are not affected.) Would be open to 10 rounds for rifles as well. 

Expand background checks to apply to gun shows.  (I'm not sure on how to best approach the P2P sale issue but I'm open)

I'd even be open to a nominal waiting period. 

 

I'm scratching my head trying to figure out problem your proposal will solve. Doesn't seem very sensible to me.

9 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Here's my idea:

Have something similar to TSA pre check.  If you pass a thorough background check and an in person interview, you have a five year pass to buy assault rifles and high capacity magazines. You'd still be able to buy handguns and hunting type rifles without it but with your pre check like pass, you could buy whatever you want without any waiting period.

That would keep the crazy people from buying an AR-15 at an Academy for one thing and no one's "rights" are taken away.

I'd also like to see restrictions on high capacity magazines.  Assault rifles and what not are only a side issue.  The Virginia Tech shooter showed that you can do equivalent damage with handguns as long as you have the large magazines.  There are people alive today that are alive because a shooter had to reload.

Sadly, the NRA won't even consider either of these.....

Your "TSA pre check" assumes that the interviewer is acting in good faith.  Unfortunately, as has been demonstrated by sheriffs in numerous locales, when a human has the power to approve or reject an applicant on subjective terms, it's used to blanket deny/reject all applicants regardless of merit.  Hard pass on that.

Magazine size is not the issue.  That rabbit hole would restricting millions of law abiding citizens because of the fear of what a few people might do.  If that's the criteria we're using to justify laws, the terrorists have won.

6 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

... But every proposal I hear is simple-minded and affects law abiding citizens while not impacting the criminals....

Mostly, but not all.  I did think the proposal mentioned in the old board/thread about streamlining a process for family members and friends to be able to petition a judge to restrict someone's access to firearms to be reasonable.  There was due process and it didn't blanket affect law abiding citizens.

[udaydanceparty 33]

17 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Lives have been saved simply because a shooter had to reload, not complicated. 

I picked 15 because I know that is a standard mag capacity for some handguns. 

When has an active shooter ever been taken down because he was busy reloading?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

The argument for smaller magazine capacity comes from the same rationale as prohibiting  the over-the-counter sale of fully automatic weapons.  

You’re trying to reduce the amount of carnage someone can inflict in a very short period of time.

Edited March 28, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

47 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

All true, much of the behavior is media driven because the conversation comes up across all media outlets after a massacre.  

However, I think we're starting to see some gun owners come around to considering sensible legislation regarding guns.

People can change their minds on how best to approach the issue. 

I think the gun laws are sensible, but the agencies put in charge to carry it out are incompetent. Especially clear after Parkland. The truth is, they dont want sensible gun laws, they want a disarmed population and a police state like they have in many 3rd world countries and Euroop.

Look at Southerland Springs too. That crazy atheist should have never been allowed to buy or own guns but they failed to do thier job. 

In October 2012, he was charged with assaulting his wife and fracturing his toddler stepson's skull. In response, Kelley made death threats against the superior officers who charged him, and he was caught sneaking firearms onto Holloman Air Force Base.^[39] Around that same time, he made threats of self-harm to a coworker.^[35]He was then admitted to Peak Behavioral Health Services, a mental health facility in Santa Teresa, New Mexico.^[39]

In June 2012, Kelley escaped from Peak Behavioral Health Services but was soon apprehended ten miles away at a bus terminal in El Paso, Texas.^[39][40] The facility's director of military affairs later recalled that Kelley had stayed at the facility for several weeks, until he was brought to court-martial. While there, he had expressed a desire for "some kind of retribution to his chain of command" and was discovered to have used computers to order "weapons and tactical gear to a P.O. box in San Antonio."^[40]

Kelley and his wife divorced in October 2012.^[37] In an interview with Inside Edition, his ex-wife said she lived in constant fear of him, as their marriage was filled with abuse. He once threatened her at gunpoint over a speeding ticket, and later threatened to kill her and her entire family.^[41]

Kelley was brought before a general court-martial on four charges: assault on his wife, aggravated assault on his stepson, two charges of pointing a loaded gun at his wife, and two counts of threatening his wife with an unloaded gun. In November 2012, Kelley pleaded guilty to two counts of Article 128 UCMJ, for the assault of his wife and stepson. In return, the weapons charges were dropped.^[42][43][44] He was sentenced to 12 months of confinement and a reduction in rank to Airman Basic. He appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, but was unsuccessful.^[45] In 2014, he was dismissed from the Air Force with a bad conduct discharge.^[46][47] 

 

[TahoeHorn 107]

8 minutes ago, bernorange said:

...

Mostly, but not all.  I did think the proposal mentioned in the old board/thread about streamlining a process for family members and friends to be able to petition a judge to restrict someone's access to firearms to be reasonable.  There was due process and it didn't blanket affect law abiding citizens.

I'll buy that.  And I'm fine with the bump stock ban.  I'm sure there are others here and there.

[bad_teammate 13,479]

6 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

When has an active shooter ever been taken down because he was busy reloading?

People run away.

Active shooters are very rarely "taken down" in any circumstance. The last school shooter "taken down" by anyone with a gun was in the late 1990s, I believe.

3 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

The truth is, they dont want sensible gun laws, they want a disarmed population and a police state like they have in many 3rd world countries and Euroop.

And here's the same paranoid delusion resurfacing through a different mouthpiece. It's almost like it's a talking point from the depths of the echo chamber.

[Brian Fantana 6,856]

13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I also wouldn’t be opposed to raising the age limit to 21 on all firearm sales.

I understand my proposals are only nominal measures to reduce deaths from gun violence but I think they’re worth cost, all things considered.

I agree. There are a lot of small things we could do to mitigate violence, but it's just impossible to have the conversation because all you get in return is FUCKING LIBRUL HITLER 2ND AMENDMENT YOU WANNA TAKE ALL OUR GUNS. Like you, I own multiple guns (mostly bolt-action hunting rifles but I do have a Glock and a couple shotguns as well) and still advocate some form of gun control. It's crazy how black and white people try and make the issue when it's anything but.

It's easy to look at all these school shootings and see what weapons are used to perpetrate them. There's no reason I should be able to go to Academy.com and order a semi-automatic "sporting rifle" with a 30 round capacity that shoots 5.56 NATO rounds. That doesn't make sense to me. Who besides a soldier or LEA needs something like that?

[udaydanceparty 33]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Active shooters are very rarely "taken down" in any circumstance. The last school shooter "taken down" by anyone with a gun was in the late 1990s, I believe.

1990s?  Bullshit. 

Pretty much every single time we have a mass shooting, someone with a gun (usually police) takes the shooter out or they kill themselves.  They normally don't change their minds and turn themselves in. 

The last school shooting we had was ended within seconds of it starting by a "resource officer" with a gun.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html

Like I said before.. when was the last time a shooter was taken out because he was reloading?  Even with 15 mag handguns, that doesn't seem to be a problem.

[udaydanceparty 33]

2 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

It's easy to look at all these school shootings and see what weapons are used to perpetrate them. There's no reason I should be able to go to Academy.com and order a semi-automatic "sporting rifle" with a 30 round capacity that shoots 5.56 NATO rounds. That doesn't make sense to me. Who besides a soldier or LEA needs something like that?

Well we elected Hitler right?  Don't you think we should be able to defend ourselves from Trump/Hitler?

[Anastasis 23,699]

I could deal with raising the limit to 21.  But let's not kid ourselves about the impact on gun violence.  The vast majority of gun violence involves handguns. Age limit on handguns is already 21. 

[Anastasis 23,699]

2 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

That doesn't make sense to me. Who besides a soldier or LEA needs something like that?

Soldiers don't use ARs, perhaps with some rare exception.

If an LEO needs an AR to protect me, I need an AR to protect me. 

I am willing to talk gun and mag restrictions when we applying them equally to all civilians, including our domestic LEOs. 

[bad_teammate 13,479]

Just now, udaydanceparty said:

Pretty much every single time we have a mass shooting, someone with a gun (usually police) takes the shooter out or they kill themselves.  They normally don't change their minds and turn themselves in. 

The last school shooting we had was ended within seconds of it starting by a "resource officer" with a gun.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html

Like I said before.. when was the last time a shooter was taken out because he was reloading?  Even with 15 mag handguns, that doesn't seem to be a problem.

Why are you including the shooter killing himself in there? That's dishonest, brother. Deeply, deeply dishonest.

The Maryland officer did not kill the shooter. The shooter killed himself. 

[VRHorn 731]

2 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

1990s?  Bullshit. 

Pretty much every single time we have a mass shooting, someone with a gun (usually police) takes the shooter out or they kill themselves.  They normally don't change their minds and turn themselves in. 

The last school shooting we had was ended within seconds of it starting by a "resource officer" with a gun.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html

Like I said before.. when was the last time a shooter was taken out because he was reloading?  Even with 15 mag handguns, that doesn't seem to be a problem

With respect to Great Mills - the shooter shot himself. The original story (that the shooter was shot by the resource officer) was incorrect.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-great-mills-shooting-update-20180326-story.html

[Brian Fantana 6,856]

13 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

Well we elected Hitler right?  Don't you think we should be able to defend ourselves from Trump/Hitler?

Protect you from what? The US military? Good luck.

You know damn well the only weapon you have that matters is your vote. You're not fighting anyone off.

Edited March 28, 2018 by Brian Fantana

[Anastasis 23,699]

Just now, Brian Fantana said:

 

 

Protect you from what? The US military? Good luck.

Same thing that a LEO apparently needs it to protect them from, maybe?

Reading comprehension is not that hard, nor is refraining from building a strawmen into that quote. 

Edited March 28, 2018 by Anastasis

[Bat Guano 363]

7 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

1990s?  Bullshit. 

Pretty much every single time we have a mass shooting, someone with a gun (usually police) takes the shooter out or they kill themselves.  They normally don't change their minds and turn themselves in. 

The last school shooting we had was ended within seconds of it starting by a "resource officer" with a gun.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html

Like I said before.. when was the last time a shooter was taken out because he was reloading?  Even with 15 mag handguns, that doesn't seem to be a problem.

Jared Loughner was taken down when his gun jammed. Similar situation.

[bad_teammate 13,479]

Cops shouldn't be armed above the citizens. At most there should be highly-trained and highly-regulated and HIGHLY-transparent (like triple backup body cams uploaded for public viewing after every action) special intervention teams with ARs, but beat cops shouldn't have anything stronger or more deadly than Law-Abiding Joe Sixpack should have.

The way to protect oneself from the government is not to up-arm yourself, but to disarm the government.

[Anastasis 23,699]

Just now, Bat Guano said:

Jared Loughner was taken down when his gun jammed. Similar situation.

High capacity magazines are more likely to jam. High capacity magazines for everyone!

[Anastasis 23,699]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Cops shouldn't be armed above the citizens. At most there should be highly-trained and highly-regulated and HIGHLY-transparent (like triple backup body cams uploaded for public viewing after every action) special intervention teams with ARs, but beat cops shouldn't have anything stronger or more deadly than Law-Abiding Joe Sixpack should have.

 

[bad_teammate 13,479]

I'm Stevie.

[Brian Fantana 6,856]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Same thing that a LEO apparently needs it to protect them from, maybe?

Reading comprehension is not that hard, nor is refraining from building a strawmen into that quote. 

Meh. I wasn't responding to you, cunt. I quoted you by accident. Fixed.

[Anastasis 23,699]

4 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Meh. I wasn't responding to you, cunt. I quoted you by accident. Fixed.

 

This new board is tough. Especially for technologicals. 

[Brian Fantana 6,856]

Careful, your aggy is showing.

[BYG Jacob 47]

VMW still needs to burn his diploma, and Ana is still a both sides idiot

[Anastasis 23,699]

[Newdoc 3,508]

6 minutes ago, BYG Jacob said:

VMW still needs to burn his diploma, and Ana is still a both sides idiot

Wow, thanks for adding to the discussion.  Great answers for those you don't agree with.

[Newdoc 3,508]

Quote

Do you really believe that "some" of those advocating for "just a little bit more gun control" are willing to stop at whatever point that is?  Sure, "some" will stop at that point because that is where they want to stop.

I see a slippery slope approach to rational gun control because when we ban the "scary guns" and devices that are used extremely rarely for homicidal violence, then shootings will continue  and professional political organizers will march out the teenagers and we will flail about with signs and speeches that don't hit at the heart of the gun violence problem in this country. The only result is we will legislate away the rights of law abiding citizens.

[Clearlakehorn 8]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I also wouldn’t be opposed to raising the age limit to 21 on all firearm sales.

I understand my proposals are only nominal measures to reduce deaths from gun violence but I think they’re worth the cost, all things considered.

What's next you commit bastard? Starting to charge parents or legal guardians for deaths caused by their children using their firearms that they failed to secure? 

 

Why not just wipe the Constitution with your ass and smoke it with some reefer while wearing sandals you libtard.

[HtownHorn 15,243]

5 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Lol.  A million instances of people talking about gun control, but if a gun nut hears one person say "get rid of the 2nd amendment" they use that as the official liberal stance.

Because that is the liberal stance, most are just fucking scared to have the nuts to say it. Apparently you are in that group.