Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Your Hi-Point Carbine, Banned.


  • Please log in to reply
140 replies to this topic

#61 YourMomsLover

YourMomsLover

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,872 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:07 PM

Why should I register rifle that my Papaw received from a Russian soldier after WWII in Germany?

#62 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,914 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:07 PM

Why should I register rifle that my Papaw received from a Russian soldier after WWII in Germany?


I will answer your question. BUT first you must answer the first sentence in my previous post.

#63 YourMomsLover

YourMomsLover

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,872 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:10 PM

Where do criminals get their guns?

I contend that well thought and carefully implemented legislation would indeed have an appreciable impact (downward trending) on gun related violence/murder over time.

Also, in what way are you harmed if you must register all firearms you own?


They have no business knowing what I own. Do they? Should I send them a blueprint of my house as well?

#64 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,914 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:11 PM

They have no business knowing what I own. Do they? Should I send them a blueprint of my house as well?


Someone else already did that don't worry.

#65 PhillyB

PhillyB

    that jungle football

  • ALL-PRO
  • 20,536 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:12 PM

How would responsible gun legislation keep criminals from getting whatever firearm they might want? I still don't see how this will affect gang members from getting any weapon they have the money to obtain. I still see it hurting legal gun owners the most.


this question gets asked a lot and it seems to me is the most often foisted argument in favor of why nobody should touch guns with legislation. "criminals don't follow laws DUHHHHHURRRRR. stupid liberals. i get this and i only have a sixth grade edumurcashun."

and while i'm annoyed with the fact that most gun fanatics think the issue is irreducibly simple and the above argument pretty much covers it all (seriously how many times does that line have to get slathered around social media sites?) there is some fundamental credibility to be issued to those very questions. i, for instance, know that i could own a firearm, treat it responsibly, keep it locked up, and never cause an incident. why should i be stripped of that right because of other idiots?

and yet i can't just cling to that argument while countless people die in gun-related deaths across america daily, from shooting sprees to murders to accidental discharges. besides "buy moar guns" how can we synthesize keeping responsible individuals armed while keeping them out of the hands of idiots/murderers/psychopaths?

i admit i don't know the answer, but i'm tired of the argument getting hijacked by the loudmouths that tend to dominate either side of the discussion.

#66 CatofWar

CatofWar

    Join, or Die

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,462 posts
  • LocationGitmo

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:12 PM

The awb from 94 to 2004 didn't do jack poo to prevent mass shootings. Neither will this one. It's fluff. It's only about making those in government feel more safe. The can do whatever they like. I'm not registering anything.

#67 YourMomsLover

YourMomsLover

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,872 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:13 PM

Where do criminals get their guns?

I contend that well thought and carefully implemented legislation would indeed have an appreciable impact (downward trending) on gun related violence/murder over time.

Also, in what way are you harmed if you must register all firearms you own?


You can answer that for yourself man. Criminals don't obtain weapons with a thorough background check at the local pawn shop.

#68 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,914 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:17 PM

You can answer that for yourself man. Criminals don't obtain weapons with a thorough background check at the local pawn shop.


I see you are clever enough to avoid destroying your own argument. I challenge you with this then.

Consider for a time exactly what weapons registration can tell us considering what you have asserted.

#69 YourMomsLover

YourMomsLover

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,872 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:18 PM

this question gets asked a lot and it seems to me is the most often foisted argument in favor of why nobody should touch guns with legislation. "criminals don't follow laws DUHHHHHURRRRR. stupid liberals. i get this and i only have a sixth grade edumurcashun."

and while i'm annoyed with the fact that most gun fanatics think the issue is irreducibly simple and the above argument pretty much covers it all (seriously how many times does that line have to get slathered around social media sites?) there is some fundamental credibility to be issued to those very questions. i, for instance, know that i could own a firearm, treat it responsibly, keep it locked up, and never cause an incident. why should i be stripped of that right because of other idiots?

and yet i can't just cling to that argument while countless people die in gun-related deaths across america daily, from shooting sprees to murders to accidental discharges. besides "buy moar guns" how can we synthesize keeping responsible individuals armed while keeping them out of the hands of idiots/murderers/psychopaths?

i admit i don't know the answer, but i'm tired of the argument getting hijacked by the loudmouths that tend to dominate either side of the discussion.


Do you not understand the 2nd protects your 1st to type this poo? Every amendment you are using is protected by the 2nd amendment.

#70 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,914 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:19 PM

The awb from 94 to 2004 didn't do jack poo to prevent mass shootings. Neither will this one. It's fluff. It's only about making those in government feel more safe. The can do whatever they like. I'm not registering anything.


I agree with you on this. AWB is completely short sighted and not the way to go.

#71 PhillyB

PhillyB

    that jungle football

  • ALL-PRO
  • 20,536 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:20 PM

Do you not understand the 2nd protects your 1st to type this poo? Every amendment you are using is protected by the 2nd amendment.


sweet red herring bro

#72 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,914 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:22 PM

"criminals don't follow laws DUHHHHHURRRRR. stupid liberals. i get this and i only have a sixth grade edumurcashun."


Insulting the people you are addressing will immediately turn them off to whatever great points you may have made or will make.

You always have to assume they will eventually begin to respond with reason if you want to make progress with a discussion. Otherwise we are just flailing around saying you are stupid... no you!

#73 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,914 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:23 PM

sweet red herring bro


Of course then this happens god damn it. Can't believe someone would actually think that is some sort of reasonable argument.

#74 YourMomsLover

YourMomsLover

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,872 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:24 PM

It's just finger pointing. Back and forth. America is 50/50 right now.

#75 PhillyB

PhillyB

    that jungle football

  • ALL-PRO
  • 20,536 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:25 PM

Insulting the people you are addressing will immediately turn them off to whatever great points you may have made or will make.

You always have to assume they will eventually begin to respond with reason if you want to make progress with a discussion. Otherwise we are just flailing around saying you are stupid... no you!


if you read the post i wrote that in, you'll see that i juxtaposed my annoyance with that specific argument and its prevalence in the debate with my fundamental agreement that it's an important point that needs to be addressed.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com