613 replies to this topic

[MadHatter]

Men who feel the need to have/shoot big guns are obviously over compensating for bb gun they've been packing since birth.

Gotta love it....use the old folk tale invented by non-masculine men to try and deflect the truth. Nice job.

[Panthro]

pew pew pew

[teeray]

Regardless of what you think the 2nd amendment says it became arcane and obsolete after the Civil War when power both politically and militarily were shifted away from individual free states and consolidated to the federal government.

The entire purpose of it was the protection of state rights and balance of power. That mirage was destroyed at Appomattox Courthouse.

[thefuzz]

Regardless of what you think the 2nd amendment says it became arcane and obsolete after the Civil War when power both politically and militarily were shifted away from individual free states and consolidated to the federal government.

The entire purpose of it was the protection of state rights and balance of power. That mirage was destroyed at Appomattox Courthouse.

My solution to this issue goes back to that time a bit.

Want to ban certain types of weapons, feel free.

At a state level.

[MadHatter]

pew pew pew

I am just screwing with you.

[CatofWar]

[mmmbeans]

why do those guys have smallpox?

[CatofWar]

why do those guys have smallpox?

Government test subjects.

[mmmbeans]

sonovabitch.

[tight lines]

In 1982 21000 people died in alcohol related crashes.

Perhaps we could reduce gun violence by half as well with more laws, regulations,and awareness.

Great example!

Yes it is a great example. Odly enough not in the way you meant it though. We were able to reduce alcohol related crashes by punishing BEHAVIOR not by restricting access to alcohol. This is the same way to reduce violent crime.

[Delhommey]

Yes it is a great example. Odly enough not in the way you meant it though. We were able to reduce alcohol related crashes by punishing BEHAVIOR not by restricting access to alcohol. This is the same way to reduce violent crime.

So things like raising the drinking age by three years aren't restricting access I guess.

Here we go making up poo again.

[Montsta]

I am not the one defying logic. My position is data based. And it is one I have held for a long time.

The shooter in Conn was not a criminal...he had no record before the killings. He did have access to legal weapons of mass destruction. Without that access...maybe a few more kids and maybe a teacher would be alive today.

I read a while back about a guy who snapped while he was driving in SF and plowed through many school children crossing the street.

He had no criminal record. No driving infractions. No history of mental illness. He just snapped one day and used the weapon he had at his disposal, a Buick, to kill several people.

It's sad what happened to those kids. It truly is. But sometimes in life poo happens that you can't control.

I've had a brother-in-law murdered by a knife, two very dear friends murdered by guns, and lost my best friend to a drunk driver. Neither alcohol, nor knives, nor guns should be banned in my opinion. And yes, if my daughter was one of the victims I would feel the same way.

[tight lines]

So things like raising the drinking age by three years aren't restricting access I guess.

Here we go making up poo again.

Raising the drinking age was not the predominant factor in dropping the alcohol fatality rate the 15-20 age group made up about 1 in 4 of the 21,000 (around 5,000) and about 1 in 5 of the 10,000 (around 2000)

ps Im pretty sure we already have age restrictions on gun purchases and have no issue with that.

[teeray]

Raising the drinking age was not the predominant factor in dropping the alcohol fatality rate the 15-20 age group made up about 1 in 4 of the 21,000 (around 5,000) and about 1 in 5 of the 10,000 (around 2000)

ps Im pretty sure we already have age restrictions on gun purchases and have no issue with that.

Difference is, if your are drinking and driving you will get arrested. If you have a gun, there is nothing punitive until after you kill someone.

Also, as I have said several times, there isn't an epidemic of people getting into cars with a sole purpose of killing others. The vast majority of people that die in car crashes did not set out to crash their car that day. If they did I would be on board with stricter car regulations and the banning of certain cars.

Also comparing an object of transportation with an object of death is not a really strong comparison in my opinion.

[boostownsme]

To summarize the gun ban argument in this thread, it's ban all or certain types of weapons simply because law abiding citizens don't "need" them. If that is the basis of your argument, step back and think about how weak that is. Why should I, a law abiding citizen living in 'Merica, be denied the right to lawfully own a gun, or heaven forbid an AR15? (insert ignoramus lib argument, "So you're saying I should be be able to own nukes") If you follow that logic, why should that single guy up the road have that 2400 sq ft house, he doesn't need it. In fact, lets boot him out and stick this more deserving 5 member family in there while were at it. I'm finished defending something that I don't need to defend. If I want something, and can legally obtain it, I get it. That's why we are all so blessed to live in the USA.