Gun control debate (merged)

#8,155
#8,155
Grand Vol said:
Other than being technologically impossible, that's a great idea.
Click to expand...


Perhaps so, perhaps not. I'm just saying it would be nice if such a technology existed. And I see no reason why law-abiding gun owners would have a problem with bullets being able to be traced to guns.
 
#8,156
#8,156
lawgator1 said:
Perhaps so, perhaps not. I'm just saying it would be nice if such a technology existed. And I see no reason why law-abiding gun owners would have a problem with bullets being able to be traced to guns.
Click to expand...

Other than being technologically impossible, it's a great idea.

Now, make it work...
 
#8,159
#8,159
lawgator1 said:
Perhaps so, perhaps not. I'm just saying it would be nice if such a technology existed. And I see no reason why law-abiding gun owners would have a problem with bullets being able to be traced to guns.
Click to expand...

"Wouldn't it be nice if..." isn't a particularly compelling angle when positing an idea. How about a pill that cures all diseases and maybe that cool Trek replicator tech that makes anything you want out of whatever matter you've got lying around?
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and 82_VOL_83
#8,160
#8,160
lawgator1 said:
Perhaps so, perhaps not. I'm just saying it would be nice if such a technology existed. And I see no reason why law-abiding gun owners would have a problem with bullets being able to be traced to guns.
Click to expand...
Because you are imposing a huge burden to exercise a Constitutional Right. Bullets have to be custom ordered for firearm from now on?

So you are ready to get rid of all gun laws and require voter ID in exchange?
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#8,161
#8,161
hndog609 said:
WTH is she even talking about?

"During a town hall hosted by CNN, Harris said that if a bill from Congress did not make it to her desk, she would unilaterally mandate background checks for customers purchasing a firearm from any dealer who sells more than five guns a year. Dealers who violate the law, she said, would have their licenses revoked."

There is nobody with an FFL license that isn't already required to do a BGC.
Click to expand...
Also any dealer selling less than five guns a year won’t be in business too long.
 
#8,166
#8,166
LouderVol said:
"ban and buyback"

that is literally taking guns away from people. that is taking away people's rights.
Click to expand...

I ask this with no agenda or no trolling in mind. If one weapon is banned, how is that losing rights? It is simply losing the right to own that one weapon, correct? I am pretty sure I cannot own a SAM but I do not believe it the ban on them violates my rights.
 
#8,167
#8,167
Purple Tiger said:
I ask this with no agenda or no trolling in mind. If one weapon is banned, how is that losing rights? It is simply losing the right to own that one weapon, correct? I am pretty sure I cannot own a SAM but I do not believe it the ban on them violates my rights.
Click to expand...

If you own a legally purchased item the government cannot enact a ban and force you to give up said item without purchasing it from you. The ban itself is not unconstitutional (sadly) its the fact the government didn’t offer payment or grandfather in the ones already owned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and 82_VOL_83
#8,168
#8,168
hog88 said:
If you own a legally purchased item the government cannot enact a ban and force you to give up said item without purchasing it from you. The ban itself is not unconstitutional (sadly) its the fact the government didn’t offer payment or grandfather in the ones already owned.
Click to expand...

He was quoting Louder so I think he was referencing Salwell's "ban and buy back" schtick.
 
#8,169
#8,169
Purple Tiger said:
I ask this with no agenda or no trolling in mind. If one weapon is banned, how is that losing rights? It is simply losing the right to own that one weapon, correct? I am pretty sure I cannot own a SAM but I do not believe it the ban on them violates my rights.
Click to expand...

Luther is a terrible role model when discussing anything firearm related. Nukes/SAMS/bio-chem weapons/etc are all red herring analogies when discussing the legal realities of civilian firearm ownership.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, InVOLuntary, Pepe_Silvia and 1 other person
#8,170
#8,170
Purple Tiger said:
I ask this with no agenda or no trolling in mind. If one weapon is banned, how is that losing rights? It is simply losing the right to own that one weapon, correct? I am pretty sure I cannot own a SAM but I do not believe it the ban on them violates my rights.
Click to expand...
I dont believe it is one specific weapon. If there was some imperial evidence that this one specific was a unique danger I would listen. As it is it is too ubiquitous of a ban to not be an attack on rights.

Personally for me anything one can reasonably use for self defense is allowed. Something that takes out a specific threat, white guy breaking in your door, without a high risk of collateral that an explosive device would cause. Now if I built a Sam bunker and had it only targeted at threstening aircraft over my property I would consider that fine.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top