Gun control debate (merged)

#20,477
#20,477
Vol Main said:
I'm waiting for that information to get sorted out. We know that the shooter in the N.Y. grocery store was hit twice by someone with a handgun. The shooter was wearing a vest and killed the man who tried to stop him. We also know that the deputy at the school shooting in Florida a few years ago did not go into the school to stop the shooter. My point is that cops with handguns are at a disadvantage against someone with an AR-15 or AK-47. Take the superior weapons off the market and require school guards to have them, and the situation would be reversed.
Click to expand...
Why not just shoot them in the leg?
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, volbeast33, McDad and 4 others
#20,478
#20,478
sonofUT62 said:
Well see we’ve chosen to do things differently, in that the rest of is don’t need to impose “a self ban” just because you did. We also don’t need to take things away from law abiding citizens just because they don’t make us safer. If you feel so strongly, go trade your automobile In for a horse and buggy Beto.
Click to expand...

Eff off. My name is not Beto.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sandman 423
#20,482
#20,482
Ruby Ridge, Waco, Kent State. How many government sponsored shootings do we accept before we ban the government from having their own assault rifle.

And guys please fill in more.

The argument to disarm the population to protect us from bad guys is nonsensical. Punishing everyone for the faults of a few also tread on a couple more rights like Innocent Until Proven Guilty. Pretending this is a 2A only argument over simplifies the results to avoid addressing the reasons we say no.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, SlipKidVol, tbh and 8 others
#20,483
#20,483
Vol Main said:
Banning Assault Rifles


Herschel Walker just gave a rambling speech, with a line about "taking your rights away." I always supported Second Amendment, and I still do. I know all of the arguments for it, and I've made them in the past. I still think everything I said was reasonable and right, except for one thing. When it got a lot of children killed, it stopped being right.


So don't talk to me about taking away your rights or "the security of a free state." High capacity, semi-automatic, high powered rifles on the market do not make us more secure. Obviously, they make us less secure. If you do not believe me, ask parents of those dead children. Ask the children who survived. Ask any sensible person. Do I think police should knock on your door and take away your rifle? No, and I want to quash talk of any proposed legislation to that effect, as quickly as possible. I believe that owning high capacity magazines, i.e. over seventeen, should be illegal. But I do not think that possession of the rifles themselves should become a crime. We need to stop people who want to commit mass murder from walking out of a gun store with one of those guns, and the only way to do that is to ban their manufacture and sale. That is what I support doing.


Look-it, I've owned a few semi-automatic long guns. I enjoyed shooting them and learning about them. I used to carry an M-16 rifle as a soldier and thought I had the right to own a high powered, semi-auto rifle if I wanted as a civilian. No, I don't. I have no right to weapons of war when they are the guns of choice to commit mass murders one after the other. Will the murders continue after people are no longer able to walk out of guns stores with assault rifles? Yes, but the murders will not be nearly as bad, and police will be able to respond more quickly and effectively.


I want gun owners to understand that banning assault rifles is not the end of their gun rights, not the end of our country, and not the end of the world. I imposed a self-ban, and I'm doing just fine. I do not need one, and neither do you. I do not want one, and I don't think you should.
Click to expand...
So knives, bats, sticks, fists, feet, rocks, bricks, fishing poles, razor blades, cars, etc, all should be banned correct? I'm a little murky on what "weapons of war" means.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol, InVOLuntary, SpaceCoastVol and 5 others
#20,484
#20,484
Vol Main said:
Banning Assault Rifles


Herschel Walker just gave a rambling speech, with a line about "taking your rights away." I always supported Second Amendment, and I still do. I know all of the arguments for it, and I've made them in the past. I still think everything I said was reasonable and right, except for one thing. When it got a lot of children killed, it stopped being right.


So don't talk to me about taking away your rights or "the security of a free state." High capacity, semi-automatic, high powered rifles on the market do not make us more secure. Obviously, they make us less secure. If you do not believe me, ask parents of those dead children. Ask the children who survived. Ask any sensible person. Do I think police should knock on your door and take away your rifle? No, and I want to quash talk of any proposed legislation to that effect, as quickly as possible. I believe that owning high capacity magazines, i.e. over seventeen, should be illegal. But I do not think that possession of the rifles themselves should become a crime. We need to stop people who want to commit mass murder from walking out of a gun store with one of those guns, and the only way to do that is to ban their manufacture and sale. That is what I support doing.


Look-it, I've owned a few semi-automatic long guns. I enjoyed shooting them and learning about them. I used to carry an M-16 rifle as a soldier and thought I had the right to own a high powered, semi-auto rifle if I wanted as a civilian. No, I don't. I have no right to weapons of war when they are the guns of choice to commit mass murders one after the other. Will the murders continue after people are no longer able to walk out of guns stores with assault rifles? Yes, but the murders will not be nearly as bad, and police will be able to respond more quickly and effectively.


I want gun owners to understand that banning assault rifles is not the end of their gun rights, not the end of our country, and not the end of the world. I imposed a self-ban, and I'm doing just fine. I do not need one, and neither do you. I do not want one, and I don't think you should.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the emotional approach to taking my firearm away because I don’t need it . Let’s hope we all don’t feel the same about your right to vote while we are suffering through food shortages and historic inflation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, -GiveHim6-, McDad and 1 other person
#20,487
#20,487
Vol Main said:
Banning Assault Rifles


Herschel Walker just gave a rambling speech, with a line about "taking your rights away." I always supported Second Amendment, and I still do. I know all of the arguments for it, and I've made them in the past. I still think everything I said was reasonable and right, except for one thing. When it got a lot of children killed, it stopped being right.


So don't talk to me about taking away your rights or "the security of a free state." High capacity, semi-automatic, high powered rifles on the market do not make us more secure. Obviously, they make us less secure. If you do not believe me, ask parents of those dead children. Ask the children who survived. Ask any sensible person. Do I think police should knock on your door and take away your rifle? No, and I want to quash talk of any proposed legislation to that effect, as quickly as possible. I believe that owning high capacity magazines, i.e. over seventeen, should be illegal. But I do not think that possession of the rifles themselves should become a crime. We need to stop people who want to commit mass murder from walking out of a gun store with one of those guns, and the only way to do that is to ban their manufacture and sale. That is what I support doing.


Look-it, I've owned a few semi-automatic long guns. I enjoyed shooting them and learning about them. I used to carry an M-16 rifle as a soldier and thought I had the right to own a high powered, semi-auto rifle if I wanted as a civilian. No, I don't. I have no right to weapons of war when they are the guns of choice to commit mass murders one after the other. Will the murders continue after people are no longer able to walk out of guns stores with assault rifles? Yes, but the murders will not be nearly as bad, and police will be able to respond more quickly and effectively.


I want gun owners to understand that banning assault rifles is not the end of their gun rights, not the end of our country, and not the end of the world. I imposed a self-ban, and I'm doing just fine. I do not need one, and neither do you. I do not want one, and I don't think you should.
Click to expand...

I hope you feel better. Nobody cares about your input though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tnutater, SlipKidVol, InVOLuntary and 5 others
#20,489
#20,489
FLVOL_79 said:
So knives, bats, sticks, fists, feet, rocks, bricks, fishing poles, razor blades, cars, etc, all should be banned correct? I'm a little murky on what "weapons of war" means.
Click to expand...

Coming from a parent that knew how to wield one ,and did it often , I’d also like to add wooden spoons .
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, GroverCleveland, norrislakevol and 3 others
#20,490
#20,490
LouderVol said:
Ruby Ridge, Waco, Kent State. How many government sponsored shootings do we accept before we ban the government from having their own assault rifle.

And guys please fill in more.

The argument to disarm the population to protect us from bad guys is nonsensical. Punishing everyone for the faults of a few also tread on a couple more rights like Innocent Until Proven Guilty. Pretending this is a 2A only argument over simplifies the results to avoid addressing the reasons we say no.
Click to expand...

Beto actually went to Kent State and argued that only the government could be trusted with high powered rifles. He’s so stoned/stupid that the irony never dawned on him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, LouderVol, Tnslim1 and 8 others
#20,494
#20,494
Vol Main said:
I'm waiting for that information to get sorted out. We know that the shooter with an AR in the N.Y. grocery store was hit twice by someone with a handgun. The shooter was wearing a vest and killed the man who tried to stop him. We also know that the deputy with a handgun at the school shooting in Florida a few years ago did not go into the school to stop the shooter with an AR-15. My point is that cops with handguns are at a disadvantage against someone with an AR-15 or AK-47. Take the superior weapons off the market and require school guards to have them, and the situation would be reversed.
Click to expand...
Nah, we don't need to cops having any more of a tactical advantage over the people than they do right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, GroverCleveland and norrislakevol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top