Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

The Gun Control Debate Thread

Dont Taze Me Bro

By Dont Taze Me Bro
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 Right cause we ain't about to change our culture. The NFL protests are a clear and easy example. Anything that threatens 'MURICA is the enemy and to be resisted at all cost. 

 

Do you see Hollywood producing significantly fewer movies that do not use guns as a fixture of the storyline? Just think back over the last 10 years how many of the big movies involve someone shooting at someone at some point, even if the shooting is done by fantastical weapons in a comic like movie. Violence in general is in almost everything now that's mainstream.

 

Do you think the music industry will have future music with significantly less violent rhetoric in it? It's not the same as movies, but it's there, and I don't see that decreasing. It seems firmly entrenched where it is.

 

What about video games?

 

Do you see a radical shift in the importance of the second amendment or the ability to curtail what it means over the next 10-20 years? If so, I'm curious what it is you think is going ot cause that. Because a school full of dead 6-10 year olds didn't do it.

 

The GOP is the biggest political partner of the NRA, and we all love to rant on and on about how the GOP appeals to fewer and fewer people, yet they just elected Donald Trump president less than a year ago. So...

 

Hunting is a huge part of our culture. Gun ownership and guns have very deep roots in our culture. We've had countless tragedies without any real movement.

 

To top it off liberal cities and states with various forms of gun bans, whether in carrying purchasing or owning, are losing their cases in court over the last 5ish years.

 

Obama actually expanded gun rights under his presidency. It's been since Clinton that anything of significance was done in terms of laws. I loved Obama's EO's, but they were just EO's and Trump is undoing them, and even the liberals hated the EO's because they think research and funding means nothing they just wants guns banned.

 

As much as we all talk about something needing to be done, all the things that actually matter have been moving in the other direction.

 

So people can sign petitions and like posts on facebook and retweet things and rant on message boards but in terms of meaningful progress it's all going the other direction and I don't really see a reason to believe that's going to change anytime soon.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mistertim

mistertim

Posted
Posted (edited)

We're the country equivalent of that guy who clearly has an absolute cornucopia of psychological problems but is too macho and self absorbed to reflect on it and admit it to himself or others and instead drowns it in booze and goes out and starts fights. Oh and he is also 6'5 270 lbs of muscle and has lots and lots of guns.

Edited by mistertim
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spaceman Spiff

Spaceman Spiff

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Do you see Hollywood producing significantly fewer movies that do not use guns as a fixture of the storyline? Just think back over the last 10 years how many of the big movies involve someone shooting at someone at some point, even if the shooting is done by fantastical weapons in a comic like movie. Violence in general is in almost everything now that's mainstream.

 

Do you think the music industry will have future music with significantly less violent rhetoric in it? It's not the same as movies, but it's there, and I don't see that decreasing. It seems firmly entrenched where it is.

 

What about video games?

 

Do you see a radical shift in the importance of the second amendment or the ability to curtail what it means over the next 10-20 years? If so, I'm curious what it is you think is going ot cause that. Because a school full of dead 6-10 year olds didn't do it.

 

The GOP is the biggest political partner of the NRA, and we all love to rant on and on about how the GOP appeals to fewer and fewer people, yet they just elected Donald Trump president less than a year ago. So...

 

Hunting is a huge part of our culture. Gun ownership and guns have very deep roots in our culture. We've had countless tragedies without any real movement.

 

To top it off liberal cities and states with various forms of gun bans, whether in carrying purchasing or owning, are losing their cases in court over the last 5ish years.

 

Obama actually expanded gun rights under his presidency. It's been since Clinton that anything of significance was done in terms of laws. I loved Obama's EO's, but they were just EO's and Trump is undoing them, and even the liberals hated the EO's because they think research and funding means nothing they just wants guns banned.

 

As much as we all talk about something needing to be done, all the things that actually matter have been moving in the other direction.

 

So people can sign petitions and like posts on facebook and retweet things and rant on message boards but in terms of meaningful progress it's all going the other direction and I don't really see a reason to believe that's going to change anytime soon.

 

Good points.

 

I'm in favor of some rules and changes being made, obviously something needs to happen.  I'm not pretending to have any amazing answers or solutions.

 

That said, you look at a guy like Paddock who was armed to the gills.  A dozen or so guns in that hotel room, cameras wired so he could see who was coming up on him.  More guns and bomb making material at his house with thousands of rounds of ammo in between.  

 

That's a lot of planning, that's a lot of determination.  Still not sure what Paddock's motives were (from the sound of it, I don't think we ever will) but look at the time and effort put forth into carrying this out.  You don't need to hear about a motive or reasoning to do something like this, look at his actions and amount of time spent.  He was going to do this hell or high water.  

 

Obviously, he didn't give a **** about laws.  Few criminals do.  I hate that answer because it's a lazy one but I also think it's pretty valid.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

Obviously, he didn't give a **** about laws.  Few criminals do

You can put me firmly in the "only law abiding citizens will follow gun laws" camp. I've been there from the start. It's true - the stats and everything else show that.

 

There's more to the general issue than just that.

 

Like -

What makes an otherwise seemingly normal person do something like that? We have some weird issues in our society with violence and it's worthy of discussion and research because it extends beyond mass shootings.

 

Why was no federal agency ever alerted to the fact that this guy had 40+ guns? I don't know where to draw the line on how many guns is reasonable and how many is too much, but I know which side of that line 40 is no matter where you reasonably draw it. Owning 40 guns isn't in an of itself a bad thing, but somewhere along the line someone in one our agencies should have been alerts to at least look at what was going on. And even if they did, they could have found nothing illegal or abnormal at the time and this could have still happened. The dude that shot up the florida club got flagged, checked out, passed, and still went on to shoot up a club. But they couldn't even get the opportunity in this case - which goes back to the NRA and the GOP essentially destroying the ATF's ability to do such a thing.

 

I know some gun nuts. They got lots of guns. None of them have anything close to 40 ****ing guns. That's absurd

(unless you're a collector or dealer or maybe you work on guns so you have lots of guns around at any point for parts, or work orders, or whatever)

Not inherently wrong or illegal, but should have at least shown up somewhere as a 'hey wtf is going on here' check off.

 

Not to mention the whole bump-stock aspect of this case. I'm open to the idea that I'm missing something, but I currently fail to see why that should even be legal.

 

And ultimately we might not be able to stop a mass shooter so long as we have guns. We might just have to accept that it's always a possibility. But our gun issue extends beyond mass shootings.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Popeman38

Popeman38

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

When the Republicans are doing everything they can to outlaw abortion, put limits on a legal medical procedure, then yes, uteruses are more heavily regulated than guns.

So, couldn’t the same be said for guns? When Democrats are doing everything they can to put limits on a legal right? Abortion has been upheld by SCOTUS. Owning guns has been upheld by SCOTUS.

 

There are HUNDREDS of laws regulating guns. On the books right now. There are not hundreds of laws on your uterus. No matter how much you protest, you can’t change facts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spaceman Spiff

Spaceman Spiff

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

So, couldn’t the same be said for guns? When Democrats are doing everything they can to put limits on a legal right? Abortion has been upheld by SCOTUS. Owning guns has been upheld by SCOTUS.

 

There are HUNDREDS of laws regulating guns. On the books right now. There are not hundreds of laws on your uterus. No matter how much you protest, you can’t change facts. 

 

Goes back to my overriding theory on both parties...that both parties are in the business of infringing on rights from different angles.  The notion that Democrats or Republicans are for personal freedoms is false.  Both sides love to tell the people what should be/shouldn't be legal and what's best for your money.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Popeman38

Popeman38

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

State's rights to regulate guns has been upheld by SCOTUS.

To a point, yes.  And I am not arguing that there shouldn't be limitations and common sense controls.

 

But watch LSF's response if any control is suggested for abortion rights.  Why is it OK for that right to be free from any suggested controls.  As strongly as some feel about needing strong gun control, others feel just as strongly there needs to be strong restrictions on abortions.  One is considered morally reprehensible to suggest.  The other is taken as a foregone conclusion. No, I am not suggesting abortion be restricted.  Just look at the reactions...

 

Does that cause any pause?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheGreatBuzz

TheGreatBuzz

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

To a point, yes.  And I am not arguing that there shouldn't be limitations and common sense controls.

 

But watch LSF's response if any control is suggested for abortion rights.  Why is it OK for that right to be free from any suggested controls.  As strongly as some feel about needing strong gun control, others feel just as strongly there needs to be strong restrictions on abortions.  One is considered morally reprehensible to suggest.  The other is taken as a foregone conclusion. No, I am not suggesting abortion be restricted.  Just look at the reactions...

 

Does that cause any pause?

I think this is an excellent point.  I said a while back if the right and left could come together and give up a little on each side of these two topics (a little thing i like to call "negotiation") they could probably actually get something done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MartinC

MartinC

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

To a point, yes.  And I am not arguing that there shouldn't be limitations and common sense controls.

 

But watch LSF's response if any control is suggested for abortion rights.  Why is it OK for that right to be free from any suggested controls.  As strongly as some feel about needing strong gun control, others feel just as strongly there needs to be strong restrictions on abortions.  One is considered morally reprehensible to suggest.  The other is taken as a foregone conclusion. No, I am not suggesting abortion be restricted.  Just look at the reactions...

 

Does that cause any pause?

 

There are already significant controls and limitations on abortion rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Popeman38

Popeman38

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Maybe because it's not strictly about abortion rights but about females' bodily autonomy. 

 

Guns exist outside of the body. 

And one was written into the Constitution. 

2 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

GOP needs to sack up and support this

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I think this is an excellent point.  I said a while back if the right and left could come together and give up a little on each side of these two topics (a little thing i like to call "negotiation") they could probably actually get something done.

 

80% of NRA members support closing the "gun show loophole".  

 

Anybody feel like holding their breath?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheGreatBuzz

TheGreatBuzz

Posted
Posted

Copied from the Vegas thread because I think it is important:

 

I plan on calling my Representatives today and telling them that I, as a conservative and a gun owner, support the bump stock ban being proposed and I want them to do the same.  I hope others are calling their Reps as well.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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