Mass shooting of the week, high school in parkland, FL.

[82_VOL_83]

Which one do you think would be scared and bring a gun?

Let's see, I am going with DTH would carry concealed and luther would be the one with the piss stain on his pants. Am I right?

 

[luthervol]

The only thing working in reverse is your brain.

For a 57 year old man (?), you’d fit in better at a daycare center.

We'd finally get to meet.

 

[Septic]

.

Can you just imagine for a second the thermonuclear meltdown that would have ensued if Obama had ordered this?

 

[luthervol]

How can you even try to discuss what weapons should or should not be banned? This why you are laughed at. You use x and y questions. You have no knowledge. That will automatically make the “other” side just assume you want all guns banned. If you don’t know the difference in weapons, and you don’t even need to be a GV level expert, just have working level knowledge above weapon of war at assault weapon.

It's actually pretty easy. Watch

If a gun was designed specifically to kill PEOPLE, ban it.

If a gun fires x number of rounds in y seconds, ban it.

 

[n_huffhines]

Can you just imagine for a second the thermonuclear meltdown that would have ensued if Obama had ordered this?

Much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

[Vol_Doc]

If I can demonstrate the same kill rate with a regular ole wooden stock semi auto or even a bolt action are you willing to consider our argument it really really has nothing to do with the gun.

Edit: but as far as use they are extremely utilitarian. I have two and with the modifications available you can configure them for nearly any task. With an AR15 (.223 Remington) and AR10 (.308 Winchester) you have incredible application flexibility and can hunt anything from small game thru small dangerous game (big cats).

Thanks for the response. Like I said, I'm not anti-gun. I just haven't heard anyone describe how you would use an AR-15 in an everyday situation. This is the sort of thing that needs to be explained to those not familiar.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

No help needed.

Looter’s at home waiting on Russian collusion and a total arms ban like:

I have had the beer in that video. It's pretty good. Bochka. The ones with red label are battery acid though

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

What I realized long ago, and what has been dramatically reaffirmed on this site, is that knowledge of the subject in no way leads to logical conclusions. It almost seems to work in reverse.

Are you this delusional in real life?

 

[volfanhill]

It's actually pretty easy. Watch

If a gun was designed specifically to kill PEOPLE, ban it.

If a gun fires x number of rounds in y seconds, ban it.

Way to prove your refusal to learn anything about a weapon. Do you teach your kids to only learn one side of a debate?

 

[SergeantVol]

Lol. You can't drop a whole part of the country to try and fudge the numbers. I guess we can drop white males and our domestic terrorism and mass shooting numbers will be better now too. Not to mention rape, pedophilia, arson, fraud, assault etc.

And I guess if you were doing that you should just say poor males. Different races in the US commit the same rate of crime when income is factored in. So yes if you drop poor people the rates would go down. But then again without all the poor people and black people who built the country we probably wouldn't be counted as a wealthy nation.

I'm actually against most gun control. But America has higher murder and suicide rates than other countries with less guns. Australia saw a drastic reduction in suicides when gun control was implemented.

The Aussies are an island without land borders to the north and south. They also lost a war to flightless birds to your Australia point is invalid. Additionally, Australia saw an increase in knife attacks and heck attacks with broken bottles.

 

[SergeantVol]

Thanks for the response. Like I said, I'm not anti-gun. I just haven't heard anyone describe how you would use an AR-15 in an everyday situation. This is the sort of thing that needs to be explained to those not familiar.

To defend against tyranny. Are you okay with restrictions to free speech? Why is one constitutional right more important than another?

Why more restrictions when the government can enforce the current restrictions?

 

[Vol_Doc]

To defend against tyranny. Are you okay with restrictions to free speech? Why is one constitutional right more important than another?

Why more restrictions when the government can enforce the current restrictions?

Go back and read my posts slowly and thoroughly.

 

[OuterBanksVol]

Texas Congress passes concealed rocket launcher bill | Texas Travesty

;-)

“Finally, Texans are equipped with the appropriate amount of explosive projectiles to properly protect their home, their family, and their state,” explained Dr. Richard Monroe, chairman of the 2nd Amendment Advocates, a political action committee responsible for furnishing many Americans with highly explosive weapons over the past decade. “If Mohammed Al-whatever tries to take away the freedoms of any Texas citizen, he will be receiving a SA-374 missile to the face.”

 

[luthervol]

Way to prove your refusal to learn anything about a weapon. Do you teach your kids to only learn one side of a debate?

My 2 oldest both received academic scholarships to GA Tech. My youngest is a straight A student in high school.

 

[luthervol]

To defend against tyranny. Are you okay with restrictions to free speech? Why is one constitutional right more important than another?

Why more restrictions when the government can enforce the current restrictions?

There are already restrictions put on free speech, as well there should be.

 

[luthervol]

My 2 oldest both received academic scholarships to GA Tech. My youngest is a straight A student in high school.

Edit: Plus I feel I more than adequately understand your side of the debate. 2nd amend., personal freedom, because I want to, cars kill, criminals don't respect the law, only criminals will have guns, if not guns then knives, protection, tyrannical government, founding fathers, blah, blah, blah...

 

[GAVol]

tyrannical government, founding fathers, blah, blah, blah...

Some of the arguments are a little tortured, but I don't think you can get away with merely "blah, blah, blah-ing" that part of it.

 

[hog88]

There are already restrictions put on free speech, as well there should be.

There are no restrictions on speech. There are only consequences for saying the wrong things. There are no banned words, no age restrictions on using words, no limits on the amount of words you can use or how many words you can use per minute or where you can use words.

 

[tumscalcium]

Some of the arguments are a little tortured, but I don't think you can get away with merely "blah, blah, blah-ing" that part of it.

#blahblahblahing

 

[FLVOL_79]

Lol. You can't drop a whole part of the country to try and fudge the numbers. I guess we can drop white males and our domestic terrorism and mass shooting numbers will be better now too. Not to mention rape, pedophilia, arson, fraud, assault etc.

And I guess if you were doing that you should just say poor males. Different races in the US commit the same rate of crime when income is factored in. So yes if you drop poor people the rates would go down. But then again without all the poor people and black people who built the country we probably wouldn't be counted as a wealthy nation.

I'm actually against most gun control. But America has higher murder and suicide rates than other countries with less guns. Australia saw a drastic reduction in suicides when gun control was implemented.

Of course the numbers would be better. But why would you drop a segment of the population that isn't leading in any of those categories?

 

[luthervol]

There are no restrictions on speech. There are only consequences for saying the wrong things. There are no banned words, no age restrictions on using words, no limits on the amount of words you can use or how many words you can use per minute or where you can use words.

To bad the same is not and should not be true for guns. But many types of speech are illegal. That's why there are legal consequences. Just ask the people being investigated by Mueller.

 

[luthervol]

Some of the arguments are a little tortured, but I don't think you can get away with merely "blah, blah, blah-ing" that part of it.

I'm blah, blah, blah-ing the bastardization of those arguments. They should be part of the debate, not reasons for ending the debate. How many on here have stated that they will agree with no further gun regulations. The "Not one more inch!" mentality.

 

[BeecherVol]

The fact that you are armed to your teeth is proof that you are scared.

How scared would you be without any guns?

Without any guns?

That's actually funny considering.

 

[Grand Vol]

I'm blah, blah, blah-ing the bastardization of those arguments. They should be part of the debate, not reasons for ending the debate. How many on here have stated that they will agree with no further gun regulations. The "Not one more inch!" mentality.

And pretty much every post you've had in this thread is a "blah blah" of it's own. You automatically jump to "BAN!" as the only conclusion to this problem and refuse to even discuss anything else. Nobody takes you serious at this point because you have nothing else to bring to the table.

And, as stated before, actually trust Congress to do something in months when action must be taken quickly.

LG, bless his heart, at least has brought other items to the talk for a change. You? You have nothing to add and should just bow out.

 

[hog88]

To bad the same is not and should not be true for guns. But many types of speech are illegal. That's why there are legal consequences. Just ask the people being investigated by Mueller.

No Luther, there is no speech that is illegal. Only things regarding speech that is illegal is use.