The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

2 hours ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

Do you know what I give absolutely zero ****s about? Arguments on the smallest details of what is a gun. Automatic. Semi-automatic. Assault weapon.

 

I DO NOT CARE. In 1994, we made that mistake and passed a law that created this debate and made practically everything available anyway.

 

Here is what the concern should be going forward. How many people can you kill and from what distance with the gun? If the answer is more than, like, 2 in one minute from the distance of a reasonable game winning field goal, ban the sum****.

 

Like I said, if another ban needs to happen, so be it.  I'm sick of all the arguing period, from both sides.  But I'm more sick and tired over the fact kids/people are getting mass murdered at an alarming higher rate (than in years past) and yet our government (both parties) are still playing pocket pool and not working together to come up with solutions to help lower these types of events from happening so often.

 

I'm tired of dwelling in the past, this president did this and didn't do that, etc.  All either party and their supporters (not everyone of course - generally speaking) want to do is continue to play the blame game and do nothing about it.  If one truly believes that it was Clinton, Obama, Bush Sr., W, etc's fault for not doing anything in the past, that's fine, just do something about it right now in the present.  

 

 

[Renegade7]

10 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

That and pretending that one guy on twitter saying only the police should have guns is an accurate representation of gun control advocates at large is not helping.

 

edit: It wasn’t even a guy on Twitter. It was a 13 year-old at the rally (supposedly).

 

Maybe not the DC one, I was there, I don't remember any of them saying that.  There was only one that mentioned a high level ban, and it was almost like they were sneaking it in versus making that their speech, everyone else that got on that stage was pretty pragmatic about the whole situation (which again, to me, was surprising).

[Kosher Ham]

Preach brother... 

[LadySkinsFan]

10 minutes ago, Kosher Ham said:

The word "wholly"  http://www.dictionary.com/browse/wholly 

 

Is the point. Clearly and obviously the Democrats didn't do anything. Not even bring it to the table for discussion really. 

 

Obamacare is not the answer either.

 

PENALIZE people for not having healthcare ? That's bull**** and the whole world knows it. 

Do I believe we should all have affordable healthcare ? Of course I do.

Do I believe I should subsidize other folks having babies they can't afford and get a tax break for having babies ? Hell NO. 

But that is the American way. 

 

Then don't outlaw women's rights to bodily autonomy and they will have less children. Also, better education for women means less children, as proved in Africa.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

5 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Maybe not the DC one, I was there, I don't remember any of them saying that.  There was only one that mentioned a high level ban, and it was almost like they were sneaking it in versus making that their speech, everyone else that got on that stage was pretty pragmatic about the whole situation (which again, to me, was surprising).

It wasn't a 13 year-old that was speaking at the rally. Just one that was attending the rally.

[tshile]

That’s an interesting move to care about an issue then say you don’t care for the details. 

 

Do you care about the issue or not? Hard to tell. 

[Kosher Ham]

11 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

Then don't outlaw women's rights to bodily autonomy and they will have less children. Also, better education for women means less children, as proved in Africa.

 

You're pulling my leg here right ? 

Women can't do what they want with their body ? Since when ? 

So what are you referring to ? 

I want to say that the UK has a 2 child law in place for tax breaks and such. 

 

I agree we need better education, I also feel that education is primarily the responsibility of the parents as teachers. 

Teachers should not be responsible for raising children that are not their own. 

[TradeTheBeal!]

C&P from a buddy who’s a professor at SUNY.

 

 

https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/University_of_Virginia_Board_of_Visitors_Minutes_October_4-5_1824

 

"At a meeting of the Visitors of the University, at the University on Monday the 4th. of October 1824. at which were present Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Breckenridge, John H. ****e, George Loyall and Joseph C. Cabell."

"No Student shall, within the precincts of the University, introduce, keep or use any spirituous or vinous liquors, keep or use weapons or arms of any kind, or gunpowder, keep a servant, horse or dog, appear in school with a stick, or any weapon, nor, while in school, be covered without permission of the Professor, nor use tobacco by smoking or chewing, on pain of any of the minor punishments, at the discretion of the Faculty, or of the board of Censors, approved by the Faculty."

 

The guy who wrote the 2nd Amendment, and the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence, were in favor of gun control. Go figure.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

1 hour ago, Kosher Ham said:

 

Yet Clinton and Obama had opportunity to do something about it and didn't. Same could be said about those 16 years and guns. The GOP is not responsible wholly for what has transpired. 

 

 

I don't care about the details on guns, but I care about the details on legislation.

 

I also seem to be the last Democrat who still defends Bill Clinton.

 

Clinton signed the Brady Bill in 1993. He signed the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. And then he had Newt Gingrich to deal with four the next 6 years, but those two pieces of legislation were the most important federal gun control bills since the 1930s. Clinton did his job here.

 

As for Obama, well, he spent pretty much all of his political capital on Obamacare and the stimulus his two years. Like Clinton, he was basically operating from a defensive position after that. His term has any number of legislative disappointments, but as Trump is learning, going big legislatively at this point is damn near impossible.

 

Unless the Dems end up with 60 Senate seats, the House, and the presidency in 2020, the best chance for meaningful gun control in the next generation is right now. Trump always runs to the applause, and if he thinks there are more applause with gun control, he'll do it. And the Republicans won't resist him in the manner they would a Dem.

 

(This is why despite the fact that he is unfit, despite the fact that he is possibly a traitor, despite the fact that I think he is mentally imbalanced, I'm generally against impeachment. His unpredictability can be used in the Left's favor if things go well in November. Unless he gets us all killed. If he gets us all killed, I've miscalculated).

[Kosher Ham]

So no booze. Weed was okay though. Cool. 

No weapons at school. Sounds good to me. 

No pets, no slaves, cool. 

 

Then the permission part... screws it all up. 

[MartinC]

51 minutes ago, Kosher Ham said:

 

 

PENALIZE people for not having healthcare ? That's bull**** and the whole world knows it. 

 

 

I have some sympathy with you on this BUT if younger healthy people don't take up healthcare then guess what happens to insurance costs for the rest of the population. Forcing wider participation in health insurance is one way you control or bring down costs. 

 

Its moving the deck chairs on the Titanic though compared with getting to grips with the inflated cost of healthcare and over prescribing.

[Kosher Ham]

So nice you said it twice. 

I think they all have a goal. 

 

Bill did some no brainer things. 

Obama did what he could. 

 

I voted for both. Actually I voted for all the winners until this past election. I felt neither was competent or deserved a vote. 

Edited March 26, 2018 by Kosher Ham

[tshile]

18 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

Unless he gets us all killed. If he gets us all killed, I've miscalculated).

 

putting that one in my notes for use later. thank you.

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

26 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

Unless he gets us all killed. If he gets us all killed, I've miscalculated

That would solve the gun problem though.

[visionary]

 

[tshile]

I wish i could be a fly on the wall in many of the meetings among the NRA and GOP leaders, and the Obama administration. I have a lot of different, some conflicting, theories about many things that went on in those 8 years.

 

Obama actually expanded gun rights, despite our friends on the right crying about how he would take them away. Part of me always wondered if that move was part of an agreement the GOP reneged on. Obama allowed us to carry guns in state parts and was supposed to get some increased background checks in return, but never did because the GOP leadership is a despicable group of people right now. It would fall in line with the foundations for some of my many theories. I have nothing to base it on other than connecting a lot of dots over 8 years that maybe shouldn't be connected; or maybe they should.

[Llevron]

Like, why do regular people need armor piercing ammo? Im sure it doesn't work like a video game. And thats the extent of my knowledge. So explain to me a practical reason why. Im asking, not insinuating. 

[visionary]

From the article:  

Quote

 

The measures up for a vote today include limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds and addressing the definition of a "justifiable need to carry a handgun." Another measure would seize firearms when a health care professional determines a patient poses a threat to themselves or others.

Since the Feb. 14 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland that killed 17 students and teachers, four other states have approved new gun measures and numerous others are in the process of debating or passing gun laws.

 

Oregon was the first, closing a so-called "boyfriend loophole" by banning people who are under a restraining order or convicted of stalking or domestic violence from buying or owning guns or ammunition.

 

Rhode Island established a "red flag" policy similar to one of the measures up for vote in New Jersey today that would allow authorities to take guns from individuals deemed a threat to public safety.

Florida also passed a number of gun laws, including raising the age to buy a rifle to 21 years old, mandating a three-day waiting period for purchasing firearms and dedicating funds to arming teachers in some state schools.

 

Washington state banned bump-stock devices, which have been a point of controversy since the deadly Las Vegas gun massacre in October.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Like, why do regular people need armor piercing ammo? Im sure it doesn't work like a video game. And thats the extent of my knowledge. So explain to me a practical reason why. Im asking, not insinuating. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by visionary

[Kosher Ham]

By that logic...why does the government need it ? No practical reason, right ? 

 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

Are you being serious? 

[Llevron]

4 minutes ago, Kosher Ham said:

By that logic...why does the government need it ? No practical reason, right ? 

 

 

Is this supposed to be a serious retort to my question? Or are you just trolling again? 

 

7 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

Thats unbearlievable 

 

Heh *snort* I crack myself up. 

[tshile]

16 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Like, why do regular people need armor piercing ammo? Im sure it doesn't work like a video game. And thats the extent of my knowledge. So explain to me a practical reason why. Im asking, not insinuating. 

 

Well regular people can buy body armor.

 

And if you believe the 2nd amendment is there to allow us to protect ourselves from and out of control government, then armor piercing bullets might fall into that.

 

I'm not so much trying to claim we should be allowed to have it, just throwing some basic ideas out there to mull on.

 

I know we like to LOL at the whole out of control government thing, but I'd like to point at the guy currently in charge who decided he doesn't need a chief of staff and has publicly praised the tactics of some of the more ruthless and uncivilized dictators and suggested they have the right idea.

 

Also, we like to LOL at the dude with the ar-15 standing on his crushed cans of budweiser with his duck dynasty beard talking about protecting our country from our government being out of control, but the middle east has shown it to be quite an effective tactic. (using the word effective a little loosely)

 

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by tshile

[LD0506]

[tshile]

Also, in case the hollow point comes up for debate with the armor piercing bullets, I believe it's actually better for you pro-gun control people that people use hollow points over other style of bullets (better meaning if you have to accept that people will have bullets at all.)

 

I believe that while the hollow points are designed to enlarge on impact to cause maximum damage, they have the neat side effect of being less likely to pass through people or other objects and cause harm to unintended targets behind the intended target.

 

Anyone who owns guns for self defense and takes self defense seriously has to consider that. What's around and behind your target is as important, if not more so, than the target itself.

[Kosher Ham]

11 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Is this supposed to be a serious retort to my question? Or are you just trolling again? 

 

Was your initial question serious ? 

I'm serious. 

I should be able to buy and have those things... if our country has them. 

Trolling ? Send me the links. I have no problem at all addressing any accusations about my posts.