Gun control debate (merged)

#24,728
#24,728
GroverCleveland said:
It would seem this would have some serious constitutional problems. $65 tax to be able to purchase a gun certainly sounds like infringement on a right the 2A explicitly states shall not be.
Click to expand...
My sister lives in Oregon. You have to purchase a license to own a dog!!! It is state law.
 
#24,730
#24,730
hog88 said:
I don't understand how people can put up with crap like that.
Click to expand...

There's many more people today that would fall into the category Samuel Adams was roasting here.

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, Orangeslice13, CagleMtnVol and 6 others
#24,731
#24,731
I'm really shocked and disappointed SCOTUS refused to take up this case. I was sure using the property rights argument would be the key to getting this ridiculous ban overturned. SCOTUS has opened the door for the Federal Government to ban the possession and to take any property it deems a danger to public health and safety.

U.S. Supreme Court again spurns challenge to gun 'bump stock' ban
 
#24,732
#24,732
hog88 said:
I'm really shocked and disappointed SCOTUS refused to take up this case. I was sure using the property rights argument would be the key to getting this ridiculous ban overturned. SCOTUS has opened the door for the Federal Government to ban the possession and to take any property it deems a danger to public health and safety.

U.S. Supreme Court again spurns challenge to gun 'bump stock' ban
Click to expand...

Right from the get go this was a much bigger issue than the "legality" of bump stocks. If one wants to argue such stocks fall under the NFA regulations as an analogue to any number of prohibited modifications that allow for "automatic" fire then whatever. However, when a bureaucratic agency ATF just announces "This thing you own we've decided you now can't and you've no recourse for compensation, grandfathering or (as far as I'm aware) opportunity for compliance with current NFA regulations that would otherwise include automatic weapons." it starts reeking of ****.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, GroverCleveland and hog88
#24,733
#24,733
hog88 said:
I'm really shocked and disappointed SCOTUS refused to take up this case. I was sure using the property rights argument would be the key to getting this ridiculous ban overturned. SCOTUS has opened the door for the Federal Government to ban the possession and to take any property it deems a danger to public health and safety.

U.S. Supreme Court again spurns challenge to gun 'bump stock' ban
Click to expand...


By your logic I should be allowed to possess literally anything, regardless of the danger it might pose to anyone.
 
#24,735
#24,735
lawgator1 said:
By your logic I should be allowed to possess literally anything, regardless of the danger it might pose to anyone.
Click to expand...

WTF did you get that from my post? By refusing to hear the case SCOTUS has granted the .gov the authority to decide any legally purchased item is a danger to public safety and can ban/take them without compensation. Tomorrow Biden could issue an EO banning the possession of any vehicle capable of speeds over 100mph and so far per the courts that would be legal.

Sometimes your inability to comprehend logic is unbelievable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, 0nelilreb and Orangeslice13
#24,736
#24,736
hog88 said:
WTF did you get that from my post? By refusing to hear the case SCOTUS has granted the .gov the authority to decide any legally purchased item is a danger to public safety and can ban/take them without compensation. Tomorrow Biden could issue an EO banning the possession of any vehicle capable of speeds over 100mph and so far per the courts that would be legal.

Sometimes your inability to comprehend logic is unbelievable.
Click to expand...


He needs those fender benders to stay afloat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolStrom and GroverCleveland
#24,738
#24,738
hog88 said:
I don't understand how people can put up with crap like that.
Click to expand...
I have been thinking about this. The universities have been indoctrinating the students for the last 20-25 years (at least) and it seems to me the crowd under 30-35 is now at the point where they believe any freaking thing the central government says.
I wonder if they have reached the point mentally where they are willing for put up with sacrifices "for the greater good," for example high gas prices because it is saving the planet. They become like the Cubans, willing to drive '57 Chevys for La Revolución! And they're so brainwashed, they do not even question what they're told.

I watched a youtube video this weekend of this progressive fellow who was imitating Crowder's game of Change My Mind with the topic being Wokeism Has Gone Too Far. He is not against Wokeism, just saying it has gone too far and had about five or six students he debated with. I watched this for about 30 minutes and not the first one of them, on either side, said anything whatsoever that had any basis in common sense. It was literally 30 minutes of nonsense nothing burger. They were doing nothing but lobbing phrases back and forth at one another. One young man, who appeared that he would be challenged to know how to use a shovel, was being a bit belligerent and my thought was, "yeah, what you need is a good a55 whipping."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, Rickyvol77, VolStrom and 1 other person
#24,746
#24,746
C-south said:
His “logic” is undeniable. Damn different movie.
Click to expand...
I just hate that line of thinking.

ANYTHING under the wrong circumstances can do an "unacceptable" amount of damage and even death. The RISK of POTENTIAL damage of an object alone is not considered criminal/ban worthy/seizure worthy in any circumstance that I can think of. Especially when it starts out as a legal purchase.

Even under the building code where all we do is manage potential risk it's almost never a pure yes/no. There are always caveats, and even when there isnt the solution is never the forfeiture of personal property. Even in the case of a building getting condemned the owner doesnt lose it. Usually it just means it cant be occupied until it's fixed. Alternatively He can sell it off completely, or sell it for scrap. Asbestos can still be found in buildings. You dont HAVE to remove asbestos. Some products made today still have asbestos.

*unfortunately though when it comes to non-life threatening areas with buildings you can actually lose your property, somewhat ironically. You can thank the lawyers for that*

The point is the RISK of POTENTIAL damage is crap logic unless you want to ban everything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13, GroverCleveland and hog88
#24,747
#24,747
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#24,748
#24,748
#24,749
#24,749
Grand Vol said:
Well, it isn't just firearms the press and police leadership don't know about. Apparently, it's knives as well.

Police seek ‘Rambo’-style knife in University of Idaho murders probe: report

I wonder if they know how many Ka-bar knives are out in general circulation? At one point you couldn't even turn around at a gun show without finding at least a dozen.
Click to expand...



It's trying to dumb it down to the lowest common denominator. When addressing the ignorant describing something using a pop culture description is apparently more useful than actually correctly citing (in this case) a very famous type of knife that predates the "Rambo" reference by 40 years. Even accepting the reasoning behind this weak association it's still not especially accurate.

Ka-Bar

ScreenHunter_7573 Nov. 17 14.55.jpg

"Rambo" knife (First Blood version)

ScreenHunter_7574 Nov. 17 14.57.jpg
 
#24,750
#24,750
hndog609 said:


It's trying to dumb it down to the lowest common denominator. When addressing the ignorant describing something using a pop culture description is apparently more useful than actually correctly citing (in this case) a very famous type of knife that predates the "Rambo" reference by 40 years. Even accepting the reasoning behind this weak association it's still not especially accurate.

Ka-Bar

View attachment 515271

"Rambo" knife (First Blood version)

View attachment 515272
Click to expand...

It would be one thing if it was simply using common terms to get information across. But once they start using that loaded phrasing, relying on ignorance to carry the belief forward, to push agendas it becomes an issue.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top