Gun control debate (merged)

#20,511
#20,511
Orangeslice13 said:
That just kicks it back to the states due to federal overreach.
Good news though. You can amend the constitution to include abortion on the federal level if they try hard enough.
Click to expand...

While I agree, we're currently at an impasse nationally where gerrymandering, special interest money, and party flex prevent the action needed to do so. Not just about abortion, but practically anything.

I believe in the concept of the Republic over that of a pure democracy. That belief is tempered by the fact that I no longer believe either party is acting in the best interests of its constituents and is instead more interested in continuing their existence and control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol and sonofUT62
#20,512
#20,512
Rasputin_Vol said:
Wooden spoons and flip flops? You guys were sheltered...
Click to expand...

My mom picked up a Hot Wheels track and went to town while my Dad was on business in South America. My sister is still doing an impression 35 years later of me running through the house trying to call the Embassy in Chile on a first generation cordless Zack Morris phone. Good times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1 and tbh
#20,513
#20,513
AshG said:
The majority of the court is Catholic. Am I mistaken?
Click to expand...
Political and secular ideology will be the major determining factor, not because of them being Catholic... and you know this.

You just never miss an opportunity to take a dig at religion anytime you get an opening. Yet you are the biggest religious poseur in here.
 
#20,514
#20,514
A few other notes:

Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – are involved in 3% of firearm murders.

Handguns are much easier to conceal and typically fire larger caliber rounds, often with hollow point/expanding, very destructive projectiles. 21 and even 30+ round mags are available.

My 12 gauge is currently loaded with 72 approximately 9mm projectiles that I could disperse in less than 10 seconds.

If "high power" is your issue, what will we do with .50 BMG, .308, .338 LM, .300 WinMag, .30-06, etc. (ALL more powerful than a 5.56). Many of those are used in hunting larger game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1vol8, sonofUT62, NorthDallas40 and 1 other person
#20,515
#20,515
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...


My argument against this logic is bad people get what bad people want. If a killer wants to gain access to an assault rifle he's going to find a way to do that even if it's illegal. Does making drugs illegal make people stop using drugs?? The same thing applies to gun ownership. The only people this will hurt are the law abiding citizens. The 2nd amendment was put into place to protect citizens from a tyrannical government.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Ask our Australian friends how giving up their arms went for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: happy-go_vol, dovervolz and kiddiedoc
#20,524
#20,524
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...

Good. The citizens should be even more overmatched when the toy soldiers execute their no knock warrants.
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol and Rasputin_Vol
#20,525
#20,525
AshG said:
While I agree, we're currently at an impasse nationally where gerrymandering, special interest money, and party flex prevent the action needed to do so. Not just about abortion, but practically anything.

I believe in the concept of the Republic over that of a pure democracy. That belief is tempered by the fact that I no longer believe either party is acting in the best interests of its constituents and is instead more interested in continuing their existence and control.
Click to expand...
It’s the system we have. The alternative would not be better for anyone. In fact it would be far worse
 
  • Like
Reactions: AshG
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top