OT: I'm upset

[MomentInTheSun]

Just so we are clear. Do you think you can actually walk into a store and walk out with a gun that day?

Because your 2nd sentence is a 100% falsehood

Whatever. Let’s just put it this way for thrust’s argument. How many bombings have there been and who were the bombers. I can think of the unibomber who was a reclusive genius. And Timothy mcveigh who was a trained killer green beret. Then there’s the Olympic bomber and I forget his background. But that’s three people and at least two were super educated and motivated.

What about mass killers with guns? I can think of a bunch of teenagers and idiots.

The idea that anything is a potential weapon is true. But there so many deterrents in place for mass murder with everything else except guns

 

[ThrustMaxwell]

What difference does that make? You can obviously go buy as many guns as you please and stockpile an arsenal to pull off what this lunatic did. It's just ridiculous our gun laws are so archaic relative to the rest of the civilized world all cause of some long outdated document.

So the constitution doesn't carry much weight for you? I've noticed that being a scary trend amongst younger generations.

 

[ThrustMaxwell]

Yet all you have to do to make the semi into a fully automatic is to buy this bump stock the guy had on his. That's the problem with these assault rifles. They are basically one little simple thing, either purchased, or found on YouTube, away from being fully automatic. If people want a pistol, or a rifle for hunting, I'm all for it. But if you think you need some semi automatic, military style assault rifle, you're probably on the fringe of the population who could carry something like this out, already.

You can do that with almost any gun, not just the scary looking ones.

 

[MomentInTheSun]

So the constitution doesn't carry much weight for you? I've noticed that being a scary trend amongst younger generations.

The idea that the constitution is an infallible document is right up there with Christians believing that the Bible is perfectly written by god.

 

[ThrustMaxwell]

The idea that the constitution is an infallible document is right up there with Christians believing that the Bible is perfectly written by god.

Certainly not infallible which is why the creators of it built in a way to modify it.

 

[fairfield35064]

You can do that with any gun, not just the scary looking ones.

You can't convert a .38 revolver in to a fully automatic death machine, or a lever action rifle, or a bolt action rifle, or a pump shotgun- at least not in a way that is affordable by most gun owners. I'm sure anything can be converted for the right price, but these other things like bump stocks are easily accessible by the average Joe nutcase.

 

[MomentInTheSun]

Certainly not infallible which is why the creators of it built in a way to modify it.

Great. Then quit scoffing at people who suggest it could need modifying

 

[Fillup Marschell]

I'm all for regulation. People like to compare guns to cars, so here's a comparison: if you own a gun, you should have to have gun owners insurance, and the more deadly the gun, the higher the cost for the insurance. You have to be able to pay liability costs if anyone is ever harmed by that gun, just like a driver does for a car.

Requiring Gun insurance is like requiring Voting insurance. The second ammendment gives us the right to take up arms and form militias. It was forseen that such a time may come where people wanted to fight an existing established government.

If the president and congress want to change the constitution there are ways. I doubt it will happen but it can be done. Until it does happen, we are stuck in the same place that we currently reside. The language is there and it is clear. That is why people can carry guns all the way up to the gates at JH Stadium. If you want true change then you will have to have a Constitutional Change. At that point you can introduce your arguments. Otherwise, you are limited to temporary bans like the Brady Ban or the Travel Ban.

Each State controls its weapons regulations and often times they end up before the supreme court.

The feds do have power over regulating certain classifications of weapons but again they are limited by what they can do. You can go through the paper work and get military grade weapons. Police Departments have access to military weapons. It is one big boondoogle that comes down to the Constitution. Do you trust your elected officials to rewrite the constitution is the bigger question and I believe most Americans do not. Right or Wrong, that is where it stands.

 

[fairfield35064]

So the constitution doesn't carry much weight for you? I've noticed that being a scary trend amongst younger generations.

The Constitution talks about a well regulated militia, in an era of guns that fired one shot every 20 seconds. There is no civilian militia on Earth that could fight, and defeat, the US Military. I don't care how many semi to fully automatic weapons they have. They are no match for drones, and stealth bombers, and tanks.

 

[Denim Vest]

So the constitution doesn't carry much weight for you? I've noticed that being a scary trend amongst younger generations.

No it doesn't. It's an outdated document like the Bible and Hammurabis Code.

It's supposed to be a living document anyway. The redcoats aren't coming anymore.

 

[fairfield35064]

Requiring Gun insurance is like requiring Voting insurance. The second ammendment gives us the right to take up arms and form militias. It was forseen that such a time may come where people wanted to fight an existing established government.

If the president and congress want to change the constitution there are ways. I doubt it will happen but it can be done. Until it does happen, we are stuck in the same place that we currently reside. The language is there and it is clear. That is why people can carry guns all the way up to the gates at JH Stadium. If you want true change then you will have to have a Constitutional Change. At that point you can introduce your arguments. Otherwise, you are limited to temporary bans like the Brady Ban or the Travel Ban.

Each State controls its weapons regulations and often times they end up before the supreme court.

The feds do have power over regulating certain classifications of weapons but again they are limited by what they can do. You can go through the paper work and get military grade weapons. Police Departments have access to military weapons. It is one big boondoogle that comes down to the Constitution. Do you trust your elected officials to rewrite the constitution is the bigger question and I believe most Americans do not. Right or Wrong, that is where it stands.

That's a bad comparison. Voting, for one, is free. Owning a gun is not. Voting can't murder dozens of people in a few minutes, and we all know guns can. Your argument is full of holes.

 

[charlie5]

What difference does that make? You can obviously go buy as many guns as you please and stockpile an arsenal to pull off what this lunatic did. It's just ridiculous our gun laws are so archaic relative to the rest of the civilized world all cause of some long outdated document.

Are they archaic in the sense that we can have guns?

Let's not act like you have a grasp on international gun laws intricacies enough to label one one way or the other.

What should the gun laws be? Everyone gets one gun? Only one bullet in the chamber guns allowed?

The problem is you make some blanket ass statement when you don't really understand the laws in the first place

 

[ThrustMaxwell]

You can't convert a .38 revolver in to a fully automatic death machine, or a lever action rifle, or a bolt action rifle, or a pump shotgun- at least not in a way that is affordable by most gun owners. I'm sure anything can be converted for the right price, but these other things like bump stocks are easily accessible by the average Joe nutcase.

True enough, which is why I changed it to almost all guns. I should've said any semi-automatic rifle, shotgun, pistol.

 

[ThrustMaxwell]

Great. Then quit scoffing at people who suggest it could need modifying

I wasn't scoffing at you for suggesting it needed modifying. I was scoffing at you for implying it was a worthless, outdated document.

 

[Fillup Marschell]

That's a bad comparison. Voting, for one, is free. Owning a gun is not. Voting can't murder dozens of people in a few minutes, and we all know guns can. Your argument is full of holes.

Those you vote for put us in wars. Not full of holes.

 

[ThrustMaxwell]

The Constitution talks about a well regulated militia, in an era of guns that fired one shot every 20 seconds. There is no civilian militia on Earth that could fight, and defeat, the US Military. I don't care how many semi to fully automatic weapons they have. They are no match for drones, and stealth bombers, and tanks.

That comma was put in for a reason. It states militias are necessary and that citizens have the right to own a gun. It never says being in a militia is a requirement for gun ownership.

 

[fairfield35064]

Those you vote for put us in wars. Not full of holes.

That's an asinine comparison, and you know it. Those we vote for can also keep us out of wars. I'm not trying to piss folks off on this bourde. I like everyone here, but guns are violent death machines, and nothing else. Votes are sacred rights given to free people everywhere. There is no comparison.

 

[Denim Vest]

Are they archaic in the sense that we can have guns?

Let's not act like you have a grasp on international gun laws intricacies enough to label one one way or the other.

What should the gun laws be? Everyone gets one gun? Only one bullet in the chamber guns allowed?

The problem is you make some blanket ass statement when you don't really understand the laws in the first place

Haha. You don't need to know any intricacies to know the US has huge gun problem relative to other civilized countries. Too many guns. Too many high powered, rapid fire guns. They serve no purpose. They're too dangerous. Sucks for the overwhelming majority that are responsible enough to own them but hey that's how society works.

 

[fairfield35064]

That comma was put in for a reason. It states militias are necessary and that citizens have the right to own a gun. It never says being in a militia is a requirement for gun ownership.

Right, and it's up to reasonable people to decide which guns are for war, and which ones are for hunting and personal protection. The NRA shouldn't get to decide, but they do.

 

[MomentInTheSun]

I wasn't scoffing at you for suggesting it needed modifying. I was scoffing at you for implying it was a worthless, outdated document.

Never said it was outdated and certainly not worthless. Just said it wasn’t infallible, but if you want to keep Ricing and put words in people’s mouths than go ahead

 

[ThrustMaxwell]

Haha. You don't need to know any intricacies to know the US has huge gun problem relative to other civilized countries. Too many guns. Too many high powered, rapid fire guns. They serve no purpose. They're too dangerous. Sucks for the overwhelming majority that are responsible enough to own them but hey that's how society works.

The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by those who haven't gone through the proper legal channels to purchase a gun. I think you'd have a lot more chance of doing good for society by enforcing the present gun laws than by tilting at windmills re: changing the constitution.

 

[Fillup Marschell]

That's an asinine comparison, and you know it. Those we vote for can also keep us out of wars. I'm not trying to piss folks off on this bourde. I like everyone here, but guns are violent death machines, and nothing else. Votes are sacred rights given to free people everywhere. There is no comparison.

Wars or bombings have occured under GHWB, BC, GWB, and BO. I have no doubt that there are going to military actions under DT. So that is 5 straight Presidents who have killed countless foreign citizens and soldiers. I would have to look and see how many of our soldiers have died. Way more have died from military action than mass shootings.

 

[charlie5]

Haha. You don't need to know any intricacies to know the US has huge gun problem relative to other civilized countries. Too many guns. Too many high powered, rapid fire guns. They serve no purpose. They're too dangerous. Sucks for the overwhelming majority that are responsible enough to own them but hey that's how society works.

Define high powered and define rapid fire

Both party line words that normally the person using has no clue how to define.

 

[ThrustMaxwell]

Never said it was outdated and certainly not worthless. Just said it wasn’t infallible, but if you want to keep Ricing and put words in people’s mouths than go ahead

My apologies, DV made that statement not you. Also, %^&* you for comparing my valid arguments to rice's nonsense.

 

[ThrustMaxwell]

Define high powered and define rapid fire

Both party line words that normally the person using has no clue how to define.

The number of pounds of trigger pull would need to be regulated to slow down the firing rate, no? Seems like a ridiculously expensive thing to enforce.

 

[fairfield35064]

Wars or bombings have occured under GHWB, BC, GWB, and BO. I have no doubt that there are going to military actions under DT. So that is 5 straight Presidents who have killed countless foreign citizens and soldiers. I would have to look and see how many of our soldiers have died. Way more have died from military action than mass shootings.

Ok if you think votes and guns are exactly the same, I can't have a rational discussion with you.

 

[ThrustMaxwell]

Right, and it's up to reasonable people to decide which guns are for war, and which ones are for hunting and personal protection. The NRA shouldn't get to decide, but they do.

Not really. The constitutional right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting nor personal protection.

 

[Denim Vest]

Define high powered and define rapid fire

Both party line words that normally the person using has no clue how to define.

Guns that can be shot out the 30th floor of a casino to kill 60 people or anything similar.

 

[charlie5]

Guns that can be shot out the 30th floor of a casino to kill 60 people or anything similar.

So all of them

 

[Denim Vest]

So all of them

Lol. I'm no gun expert but don't be ridiculous.

 

[MomentInTheSun]

So all of them

Nah. I think you’d have a really hard time wounding 300 plus people and killing 60 with a hand gun. Get real you dumbass

 

[ThrustMaxwell]

Lol. I'm no gun expert but don't be ridiculous.

If you have 22,000 people packed in like sardines a Ruger .22 could kill 60 of them.

 

[charlie5]

Guns that can be shot out the 30th floor of a casino to kill 60 people or anything similar.

And I'm not a big conspiracy theorist. But the idea that he just had an AR with a Bump Stock is complete horseshit to me. There's absolutely no way he could have replicated the amount, frequency, and consistency of fire from an AR with a bump stock

 

[ThrustMaxwell]

Nah. I think you’d have a really hard time wounding 300 plus people and killing 60 with a hand gun. Get real you dumbass

No reason for name calling, especially when you're wrong.

 

[charlie5]

Lol. I'm no gun expert but don't be ridiculous.

Nah. I think you’d have a really hard time wounding 300 plus people and killing 60 with a hand gun. Get real you dumbass

I could probably kill and wound more honestly. I could fire a full clip and reload within 20-30 seconds. Maybe even faster

 

[MomentInTheSun]

No reason for name calling, especially when you're wrong.

Lol. No. You’re not wounding 300 plus people with a handgun. You’re an idiot if you think otherwise. This isn’t keneu reeves and the matrix

 

[ThrustMaxwell]

BTW, I love all y'all and only own a few handguns and a shotgun because I inherited them.

 

[Denim Vest]

If you have 22,000 people packed in like sardines a Ruger .22 could kill 60 of them.

Ok ban that one. How bout a regular shotgun or single shot rifle. Or a regular handgun? There were another 500 injured. Let's be real about the situation.

 

[Fillup Marschell]

Ok if you think votes and guns are exactly the same, I can't have a rational discussion with you.

If you can not look at the current political climate and see how dangerous allowing anyone to vote merely because they have reached a certain age, then I can not help you either.

Both are currently a birth right. Both require very little effort to do. Both generally are rights exercised regularly. Both can have drastic influence on the citizens of this country. Both are held sacred by those exercise them.

 

[ThrustMaxwell]

Lol. No. You’re not wounding 300 plus people with a handgun. You’re an idiot if you think otherwise. This isn’t keneu reeves and the matrix

No, but it is 22k people jammed into a tiny area. If you don't think you could fire off 300 shots from a handgun in the time it took for a crowd that large to disperse then I'm not sure you're educated enough on the subject to talk about it.