Gun control debate (merged)

#27,152
#27,152
luthervol said:
Good start. The problem highlighted by my post is that states or cities with more rational and reasonable gun regulations and restrictions because of the lack of restriction and regulations in other states. Almost leading one to think their needs to be some national guidelines.
Click to expand...

There is a national guideline. It’s the constitution. Some states violate that. Some states are getting rude awakenings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, NurseGoodVol and StarRaider
#27,155
#27,155
luthervol said:
Please. The federal law came about because of the massive growth in use. Everyone knew it was a growing problem that was quickly becoming epidemic. There is no possible way to know how much greater the growth would have been without the laws which were enacted.

It's like if a hurricane is forecasted to hit a city. You put out sand bags, board up windows, and issue evacuation orders. The hurricane causes massive property damage and some loss of life. No one would even dream to say, "see all of those precautions and evacuation orders were ineffective because we still had massive property damage and loss of life."
That's idiotic.
A reasonable person understands that even though it was horribly bad, it could have and would have been worse.

Same with meth. It was a hurricane that could not be stopped. You could only try to lessen the damage.

Our crazy gun culture is sort of in the same category.
Click to expand...
so do something just to do something?

and if you are expecting a 5'-0" storm surge and you build a 3'-0" sandbag wall, no you haven't helped yourself, you will still have 5'-0" of water in your house. and what you are forgetting is all of your preparations in this case require dismantling other people's homes to use to build the sandbag walls and board up the board up the windows. even though it won't actually stop or even help the problem.
 
#27,157
#27,157
luthervol said:
He did buy them in a short amount of time. I'm not sure what all thresholds I have thrown out. You guys seem to pay a lot more attention to those than I do.
My whole point has always been - "I don't know; it's negotiable, there is room for compromise."
I'm just kind of the idea guy.
Click to expand...
the quote you gave said from 2020 to 2021, to me that rationally and reasonably says more than 12 months, and up to 2 years. Unlike you I don't just accuse others of the worst case scenario without knowing more details. which is also part of the reason I asked earlier, I was banking on you not knowing either.

I don't consider up to 2 years a short time to acquire 27 guns.
 
#27,158
#27,158
luthervol said:
I only read the first sentence.
I have never claimed anything will fix the problem.
In fact I will state again "NOTHING WILL FIX THE PROBLEM".
I just want rational and reasonable regulations and restrictions that will minimize the problem and the resulting damage to society.
Click to expand...
yeah, you should have kept reading. I explained how your rational and reasonable is just bs claims you hide behind because you won't admit what you truly want.
 
#27,162
#27,162
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Why would the number of guns ever be a problem? The problem is the number of violent criminals and the impotent way that the judicial system often deals with them.
Click to expand...
Luther thinks gun “nuts” are the problem. But it’s not NRA or GOA members committing crimes with their legally purchased firearms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol
#27,165
#27,165
Anybody that wants to argue that the government would never seize guns, a democratically elected Senator from Vermont is proposing that the government seize all wealth that’s been accumulated beyond a billion dollars from citizens. Not tax income at 100%. SEIZE ASSETS once one’s wealth exceeds $999,999,999.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zues1
#27,166
#27,166
Thank God for the armed pioneers, settler’s, trapper’s, mountain men and citizens that fought for our freedoms. And, thank God that it’s been a deterrent to countries that would want to take away our freedoms still today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman
#27,167
#27,167
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Anybody that wants to argue that the government would never seize guns, a democratically elected Senator from Vermont is proposing that the government seize all wealth that’s been accumulated beyond a billion dollars from citizens. Not tax income at 100%. SEIZE ASSETS once one’s wealth exceeds $999,999,999.
Click to expand...

The Venn diagram of people who support gun grabbing and this looks like just a circle. Truly backwards people
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#27,168
#27,168
volfanhill said:
View attachment 549596
Click to expand...
He talks about taking action to avoid a worse future. But doesn't realize that those same actions may lead to an even worse future.

even if things don't turn violent, and the government never once oversteps on its disarmed population. Is it worth the political divide? locking up hundreds of thousands, if not millions, gunowners? Is it worth ALL the damage to the other rights he is just bulldozing over.
 
#27,170
#27,170
loggervol said:
Thank God for the armed pioneers, settler’s, trapper’s, mountain men and citizens that fought for our freedoms. And, thank God that it’s been a deterrent to governments that would want to take away our freedoms still today.
Click to expand...
fyp, because, you know, DC....
 
#27,171
#27,171
jp1 said:
And that is ok for you? What if they limited your access to cars/driving because we had intoxicated people driving? No driving for you after 8pm because that is when drunk people are on the road.
Click to expand...
Of course it's not okay. That's why it has always been my goal to improve that balance.
 
#27,174
#27,174
LouderVol said:
yeah, you should have kept reading. I explained how your rational and reasonable is just bs claims you hide behind because you won't admit what you truly want.
Click to expand...
Well then the rest certainly wasn't worth reading.
I have no desire whatsoever to interfere with a person's right to keep and bear arms.

Unless of course gun nuts are insane enough to go down the anything and everything or nothing path.
(90% will pick nothing if those are the only two options) I wish more gun nuts could comprehend this.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top