Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Gun Control Debate Thread


Dont Taze Me Bro

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

 

Because hypothetically, the right to arms is endless, no?  We can all have miniguns and 50,000 rounds of ammo?

 

No, no its not. 

 

We don't have the right to lie in court and claim free speech, that's called purgery.

 

There are limitations to our rights that we've already accepted.

 

This in context that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Founders ratified the 2nd Amendment with the intent of folks walking into Chick-fi-la with an AR-15 strapped to their back in the name of freedom.  This is really a modern interpretation of the 2nd Amendment led by the money from the gun manufacturers. 

 

Freedom and Anarchy are not the same thing, that's what we'd get with "endless access to right to bare arms".

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

 

You lost me at the first sentence.  Maybe they do.  Listen and have a discussion.

 

The power thing?  Ehhhh I have to side with you on that.  Fair play.  There's my blanket statement. 😆

 

No, they don't. They aren't interested in discussing it and froth at the mouth at even the most minor proposals (such as universal background checks, which the vast majority of Americans support). The only "solution" they're interested in discussing is giving everyone more guns and making it as easy as possible for them to do so. That's it.

 

Even the bull**** they throw out about mental health is a complete dog and pony show because when it comes down to actually increasing funding for mental health they vote it down. Abbott himself starting throwing out the mental health stuff after this tragedy, but in April he cut $211 million from the Texas department that oversees mental health programs.

 

The Republicans don't give a flying **** about mental health. It's just something they throw at the wall every time one of these mass shootings happen so they can deflect and distract, and then immediately "forget" about once the tragedy has passed and people move on.

 

You can't have a discussion with them unless you agree to never pass any gun control measures whatsoever and agree to make it even easier to get them.

 

That "discussion" would be akin to something like this:

 

"Hey we have $100 and we really need to figure out how to split it. Let's discuss it. How about 50-50?"

"No"

"Ok, 60-40? You get 60, I get 40"

"No"

"Ok...how about 75-25?"

"No"

"Ok...90-10?"

"No"

"Ok...what will you accept? We need to figure this out"

"I take the $100 and you give me another $10 so I have $110"

"Wait, what? How does that make sense? This is ridiculous. We have this money to split and you want it all plus I give you an extra $10?"

"Yes"

"That's dumb, I'm not doing it"

"SEE? THIS GUY DOESN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT SOLUTIONS! HE'S BEING DIFFICULT!"

  • Like 1
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

No, no its not. 

 

We don't have the right to lie in court and claim free speech, that's called purgery.

 

There are limitations to our rights that we've already accepted.

 

This in context that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Founders ratified the 2nd Amendment with the intent of folks walking into Chick-fi-la with an AR-15 strapped to their back in the name of freedom.  This is really a modern interpretation of the 2nd Amendment led by the money from the gun manufacturers. 

 

Freedom and Anarchy are not the same thing, that's what we'd get with "endless access to right to bare arms".

 

Alright.  My point exactly.  Where does the rule stop?  What is your stance?  What armament are we allowed to walk in to a store with?  What levels are there to it?  Qualifications?

 

See?  It gets muddy.

 

And what can you have at home?

 

The problem is.........

 

 

People gonna break the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

These complete blanket statements sound like the enemy you despise.  This is why I'm embarassed to ID as democrat.

 

Not as much as repub, however, so I still "side" with you all.

 

Dems have become what they hated 15 years ago. Militant, stereotyping, broad-stroking.  Everyone here is "this way" huh?

Seeing this from the outside, it seems the US politics is either MAGA or woke. Which is kinda weird. And somehow France is going this way too according to our last elections.

 

At some point you have to wonder where are the pondered people?

I would believe they join either side because after many decades of trying Reps/Dems their problems aren't solved and some have even grown more.

 

So it shouldn't be of any surprise that both sides are taking it to the extreme. (and extremes in politics are often anti education as they need people to believe the **** they are feeding them, which they couldn't if they were just telling truth.)

 

Nox, regarding the Gun control, still looking from the outside, I would tend to agree with the NRA, that guns aren't really a problem. After all, many countries do allow the selling of weapons (though not automatic rifles in most cases) and aren't hit with mass shooting like you are. Problem is that some people shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun.

 

And the best part which goes back to my first point, is that those that know how to use a gun are most generally in favor of gun control (those are pondered people). Those that are against, are most likely those that will make a bad use of it.

 

26 minutes ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

When does it stop?  When is it illegal to own a tank, a warship (air), a 2,000 lb bomb?  You could play it off like a saint...until....

I was wondering the same thing, when will somehow allow people to buy F-35. Should be fun.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, steve09ru said:

They vote republican at the state level where their state and local policies come in?

No.  The Massachusetts House of Representatives seat 160 people.  129 are Dems, 29 GOPs, 1 independent, and 1 unfilled. The state Senate seats 40 people.  37 Ds, 3 Rs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

 

Alright.  My point exactly.  Where does the rule stop?  What is your stance?  What armament are we allowed to walk in to a store with?  What levels are there to it?  Qualifications?

 

See?  It gets muddy.

 

And what can you have at home?

 

The problem is.........

 

 

People gonna break the law.

 

This doesn't come across like an attempt to have an honest conversation about this, and this isn't the first time I've seen this slippery slope argument. 

 

Right now plenty of private business and government building don't allow firearms inside their buildings, NRA banned firearms from their convention and I don't hear any gun nuts talking about their rights being infringed.

 

My stance is now this mass shooting problem isn't a gun control issue, it'd a terrorism issue, and needs to be treated as such. 

 

That will have a massive impact on the very limited number of individuals that shouldn't have any firearm at all, because continuing to treat this as a gun control issue isn't working, gun rights folks are too dug in and pumping too much money to block everything in the name of "slippery slope".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ball Security said:

No.  The Massachusetts House of Representatives seat 160 people.  129 are Dems, 29 GOPs, 1 independent, and 1 unfilled. The state Senate seats 40 people.  37 Ds, 3 Rs.

What reasons would they elect a republican governor then?

 

just curious as you are making it out to seem that it’s unfathomable for a democrat to see eye to eye with a republican and vice versa 

Edited by steve09ru
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

I was wondering the same thing, when will somehow allow people to buy F-35. Should be fun.

 

You and I both know this won't happen, nor will my hypothetical situations.

 

Just saying...

 

You can accumulate all this crap by being "good"...then lashing out like the Mandalay Bay guy.  And on a much smaller scale.

 

So we ban guns.  We tell the population that - what do we do with the backlash, is the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, steve09ru said:

What reasons would they elect a republican governor then?

 

just curious as you are making it out to seem that it’s unfathomable for a democrat to see eye to eye with a republican and vice versa 

We’re getting way off topic.  Hit me up in another thread.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

People gonna break the law


Yes. Some people will. 
 

But when the topic is gun control, that phrase is used to say "some people gonna break the law, therefore we cannot even discuss having a law."

Edited by Larry
  • Like 2
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Sure thing, 2nd Amendment says whatever gun you want otherwise its slippery slope person. Smh.

 

Woah.  That's my offering of debate.  When does it stop?  What is the best weapon a person can have, and why?

 

It's a question.

 

Otherwise known as, an honest conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

 

Woah.  That's my offering of debate.  When does it stop?  What is the best weapon a person can have, and why?

 

It's a question.

 

Otherwise known as, an honest conversation.

The guy has bemoaned the lack of honesty conversation a couple of times. But is not willing to listen to anything other than his own viewpoint. Which doesn't offer a solution. Well other than a national "profiling" program which is sure to cause innumerable problems.  Wait until his profiling suggestions disproportionately impact groups he didn't mean to hit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Redskins Diehard said:

The guy has bemoaned the lack of honesty conversation a couple of times. But is not willing to listen to anything other than his own viewpoint. Which doesn't offer a solution. Well other than a national "profiling" program which is sure to cause innumerable problems.  Wait until his profiling suggestions disproportionately impact groups he didn't mean to hit

 

Alright alright alright.  Matthew McConaughey voice.

 

We all know this.

 

I just would like all of us to figure out a theoretical solution.  Instead of attacking each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

 

Alright alright alright.  Matthew McConaughey voice.

 

We all know this.

 

I just would like all of us to figure out a theoretical solution.  Instead of attacking each other.

I agree. I think so at least. 

 

There are things that can be done to make it more difficult to carry out sensational mass shooting crimes.  The kind that get this thread bumped and garner 24x7 news coverage.  There are other things that can address the rest of gun violence(which is the vast majority)

 

It is going to take work. First step is people educating themselves

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

The guy has bemoaned the lack of honesty conversation a couple of times. But is not willing to listen to anything other than his own viewpoint. Which doesn't offer a solution. Well other than a national "profiling" program which is sure to cause innumerable problems.  Wait until his profiling suggestions disproportionately impact groups he didn't mean to hit

 

I offered plenty you didn't respond to because I didn't give you my own definition of an "assault rifle".  You can respond to that post at time.

20 minutes ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

 

Woah.  That's my offering of debate.  When does it stop?  What is the best weapon a person can have, and why?

 

It's a question.

 

Otherwise known as, an honest conversation.

 

Not really, because when does it stop is always the come back to stop from ever starting. 

 

What are your thoughts on treating this like terrorism instead?  Because I've lost hope in getting gun control implemented any time soon. That's why I'm tired of debating it.

Edited by Renegade7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I offered plenty you didn't respond to because I didn't give you my own definition of an "assault rifle".  You can respond to that post at time.

 

Not really, because when does it stop is always the come back to stop from ever starting. 

 

What are your thoughts on treating this like terrorism instead?  Because I've lost hope in getting gun control implemented any time soon. That's why I'm tired of debating it.

Sorry but you aren't worth the time and effort.  Why discuss with someone who is tired of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

Sorry but you aren't worth the time and effort.  Why discuss with someone who is tired of it?

 

Because this isn't a gun control issue, it's a terrorism issue. 

 

We've been debating this for years, I've given different inputs as have others for well over decade now and gotten nowhere. This is my current realization that gun control conversations go nowhere and why.

 

I don't care about what the official definition of an assault rifle is because there are clearly some folks that shouldn't have any gun at all and we can't even agree to stop that because of slippery slope. 

 

Quote

The state of Texas does not currently have a red flag law, which generally allows law enforcement or family to petition a judge to remove someone’s guns for a period of time if that person is deemed to be a danger to themselves or others.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.kxan.com/news/texas/uvalde-school-shooting/dps-texas-shooter-discussed-school-shootings-guns-on-social-media/amp/

Edited by Renegade7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...