TheGreatBuzz

Notice that you completely leave out the part where I said training would be a good idea. Thanks for the thorough conversation.

Well for the record I have said on numerous occasions that I HATE the NRA.

I'm going to post here so as to not take away from the officers shot being discussed in the other thread. Everyone knows I'm pretty hard core gun rights guy. But I've had discussions and been able to agree to something reasonable gun control measures as people like Burgold here can atest to. The way things are going lately make me want to pull some of that back. The world is not going in a positive direction and the worse it gets, the more I want the tools to protect my home and family if the need arises. I will still agree to a training requirement for a person wanting to have a weapon though.

If you are going to use critical thinking then apply to it both sides. And I like having both sides displayed so I can make up my own mind. Sorry.

Yea Larry. It was meant to be somewhat funny. Nice catch. Like the other day I said "I never speak in absolutes". See what I did there? And, surely, I would never refer to him by a girls name.

Yes. Absolutely. 100%. And that is clearly what I meant also. There is clearly no way that you could interpret my post instead as a sarcastic response to a clearly biased article written by someone with an agenda. I also never use sarcasm. That fact that a decent point is made in this instance doesn't change the fact that the author didn't even try to act like there wasn't an agenda in writing the article before the first letter was typed. And people wonder why no one trusts the media.

Oh how I love a good non-biased article where the responsible author states that facts of both sides and clearing isn't just driving an agenda.........

Miss the part where it says the gun was pointed in his direction?

Haha.....Sorry but I don't read much fantasy. More of a Tom Clancy and John Grisham type guy. Though I did love the book Enders Game when I was a kid. Read it again a few years back and wasn't as good as I remembered. And I don't know about the "dune" reference. I meant it as a play on a famous quote, Churchill I believe. What is the Dune thing?

I'm in a subtle mood today apparently. Cleverly slipping things into posts to see who catches them.

Agree to disagree. I think it's one of those things where the 30,000 foot view looks good. But start getting into the weeds of gerrymandering and outright lies told by politicians along with everything else, no I don't think we have a good system in place. If the system was allowed to work the way it should work, it'd be great. But the professionals that know how to manipulate the system are the ones that want to stay in power so it benefits them to manipulate the system. We have one of the worst forms of government on the planet, except for all the others.

No chance? No, I never speak in absolutes. Catch what I did there?

Gonna have to disagree with this one. Though a person with a gun hasn't solved the issues with 90% of the people in DC.

I remeber the semi vs full auto discussion but don't remeber that outcome. Guess when your mind is already made up, you hear I different result. I don't know what you are even saying here. Like I'm legitimately confused. If you are saying ban AR'S, fine go ahead. There are other models just as good. Most people just don't know the difference as we saw with the Orlando shooting.

Walmart stopped selling AR'S a while ago. But you can get them at similar places which I'm guessing was your point. Normally an AR will not go through body armor. And armor piercing rounds for the most part are illegal. Now what constitutes armor piercing etc is a long topic I'll let you research. It also depends on what level of body armor you are talking about. And things that can go through body armor is a pretty long list. Dirty Harrys gun would either go through or at least punch it so hard that the armor itself would pentrate the body. Long story short it's where the law doesn't keep pace with technology. And it's another way where banning an item based on its name sounds good but good luck define it.

Not directed at you. Just people in general that try super slick ways to beat a dui.

I prefer to go with the much simpler method of Don't Drink and Drive. That's just me though.

Oh I realized we fundamentally disagreed a while ago. And I'm not paranoid, but plenty of voters are.

[quote name="skinsfan_1215" post="10638027" My take on the 2nd amendment is that our Founders wanted to ensure that the citizens of this country remained armed to prevent a tyrannical government from oppressing them. That worked fine with 1700s era muskets. That's not feasible in the 21st century, because in order to give the people a fighting chance against the government they'd need access to things like tanks and fighter jets. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't setting you up to make this response. And it's only e that has always confused me. You are saying no one can compete with the US military without tanks and misses? So why do we have so much trouble beating every enemy in the last 50 years? Gorilla warfare can't be beat with tanks and aircraft.

I've tried to remain polite. Please do the same. I'm probably one of the nicest gun rights people there is to have a discussion with and I'd like to keep it that way.Care to address my point about what you think the purpose of the 2nd is?

Practical: well depending on how you define the purpose of the 2nd, that may be needed. And I like not having to reload every 5 seconds at the range. Constitutional: lines have already been drawn other wise I would have grenades and such. You are wanting to move the line. You need a better argument.

What argument do you have they aren't?

It sounded like you would essentially be limiting long guns to hunting use only. I believe in the right to have a 30 round mag for example. Though I would be fine with better background checks and waiting periods.

Well my hate for the NRA is well documented here. But I would start donating to them if that's what it took to stop this. Way to far IMO.

Fergasun you do realize that you are giving "ammo" to the argument that "liberals want to come take our guns" right? I usually laugh at people making those claims but you aren't helping.