TheGreatBuzz

11 inches by 25 inches? Pretty small room. Should be able to do it real cheap. /sarcasm

Well why would we let them have guns too? That's dumb. Merica

I doubt that is the reason that they use, though that may be the underlying reason.

So I saw something on Twitter and I have an honest question. What is the reasoning behind wanting the gun maker held liable for the actions some does with their product? I have heard the libs propose this and just ignored it because they're liberals and usually against guns. But what is the actual reasoning they use for it? We don't hold the auto maker or beer maker responsible for DUI's. We don't hold the server manufacturer responsible when someone wrongly stores classified data on their product (saw that on Twitter, made me laugh). I get these aren't exact parallels so please don't waste your time pointing that out. But what is the justification for suing the gun manufacturer? I would be all for it if they made a gun that was "legal" but could be made to work in an illegal manner (say full auto for example) by inserting a paper clip or something like that. But speaking of the run of the mill gun maker, what is the argument for it? Thanks.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/28/politics/u-s-capitol-and-white-house-on-lockdown/index.html Capitol and White House on lockdown. Not worth it's own thread yet but needed to go somewhere. We'll see how it plays out.

#1 It hadn't been changed at the time of my initial post so you can't fault me for pointing it out. #2 maybe it doesn't make a difference to you but I was explaining why it did make a difference to ME. But you are right in that it has now been changed and the guy is still an idiot.

Maybe to you it makes zero difference. But I know that any idiot can buy a semi-auto rifle while there is a lot of leg work to LEGALLY own an auto rifle. And usually someone that does that leg work is a lot more savvy with weapons and their dangers. So someone doing that with a semi-auto isn't surprising while someone doing it with a full auto is a little more surprising. And like I said, stickler for details. Especially in a thread where the main topic is guns.

Just being a stickler for details, I wish people would learn the difference between automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons. The title says auto, while the article then says semi-auto. There actually is a big difference. The two are not interchangeable. And this guy is an idiot.

I'm not talking about having China support a democratic NK or anything. Let them put in another dictator if that's what is needed. But just get them to keep NK in check. They can still be a communist **** hole, just a slightly less crazy one.

I wasn't sure if I should include this in campaign thread or here but decided on this one. I'd really like to US to start leaning harder on China to control NK. Include it as part of a trade deal or something. But it needs to be made clear that China needs to yank this dogs chain. Everyone knows NK would completely crumble if China wasn't propping them up. So really I blame China for allowing this to continue. I'd like to see NK become a major part of the next presidential debate.

Yea I think there does need to be some tighter rules and enforcement on "after market" parts for weapons. I also think some of the laws need to be revisited because they just don't make sense with what's available today. I suspect you know this also as an AR owner. Though I also don't know of any mass shootings that have been done by some of these modifications so maybe the tighter rules would just be to make me feel better.

It wasn't directed at anyone in particular and it wasn't supposed to be anything religious. Just a question I like to ask sometimes. It's just two topics that both sides usually feel strongly about and it's interesting to see where people are willing to give and take. EDIT: For the record I am an atheist and believe abortion is wrong in most cases. I also accept it isn't my job to impose my morals on you so I consider myself pro-choice.

Out of curiosity, would you (democrats for simplicity sake) agree to leave gun control alone if we (republicans for simplicity sake) agreed to leave abortion alone?

Show me the website that says the civilian version is "specifically designed for hunting people". I know people that hunt animals with an AR. That is not a gun though. That is a modification. It's like adding a super charger to your car. Now if you want to talk about whether or not a certain add on should be allowed, I'm totally open for that discussion. But your out of the box AR will do a lot of the same things that out of the box hunting rifle does.

I had to teach this to my wife. I showed her a picture of a AR-15 and a wood stock semi-auto hunting rifle. She said the AR should be banned but the hunting rifle was okay. She was surprised when I explained to her that they were both capable of doing the exact same thing. It's just the look that scares people. I suspect a lot of the population just isn't that informed about guns. That's why some call the assault weapons ban the "scary looking gun" ban.

But how will they know what guns that person has to ensure they are all turned over? It's not like there is a list or registry of all the gun owners and what they have. Or is there? Maybe a secret list? That's how Obama is going to come take all our guns!! I knew it !!!

True. But the person didn't just suggest limiting access to guns. Or even major legislation making guns much harder to get. He talked about going door to door and taking ALL guns. I would imagine if ALL privacy laws went away, the right to vote were completely taken away from 100% of the people, or freedom of speech were 100% repealed, you'd see a lot of talk of civil war. And to be clear, I'm not advocating for civil war. Just making a point.

#4 -It would more than likely start a no **** civil war.

Your third paragraph was a fact used to answer my question. Thank you. The rest of your post was just your biased opinion. You are entitled to it but when you want to make a point, just stick to the facts. It will go a lot further.

Curious how you know this?

Good article but seems that a foregone conclusion was reached before it was written. I hate that. Put up both sides and if your side really is better, it will win. This was very one-sided. I say all this as a republican, gun owning supporter of the Second Amendment (the way most republicans interpret it).

Well I stayed out of the "merits" of each side like poster I was responding to asked. And I see we have fallen back to the same ole "piss and moan about the other sides stance and not put forward a solution that both sides might actually agree on" stance. Now cue the "well the gun lobby won't let any changes be made" and the "the other sides stance is stupid so why should be negotiate" responses. Like I said, this is like every other issue we face today. Both sides are so dug into their own positions that they won't honestly consider another idea. Instead they will just mock the other sides position. They may even throw out some twisted or completely made up "facts" to support their position.

It pretty much comes down to restricting gun rights vs. doing something about mental health. There is a lot more detail and levels to it but that is the two general sides. But like pretty much every single issue facing America today, the two sides are so far apart and have their heels dug in so deep that common sense, middle ground solutions can't be reached. So the average citizen is left with having to learn how to duck and cover.

Is it just me or does it seem like there is a few teams out there that looked at the trainwreck the Redskins organization was up until recently and said "We should try that!" I don't get it.

Pretty much whoever is the next coach of the Browns, it's a bad idea for that coach.