Bone:
I guess my point is that how do you realistically anticipate a long protracted situation where you fight you way to your rifles with a handgun, and then starting laying down semi-auto fire? I don’t see it.
If we give up having a semi in such an unrealistic situation, there’s a significant gain for society as we diminish the lethality of a long range scenario like we saw last week.
Wrong.
The anti-gun side would like to do something, anything, that might start making a dent in gun violence. I know that in all likelihood, very little progress will be made on gun violence in the US in my lifetime. I hold out hope that things may have gotten better during my children’s lifetimes.
Those of us on the anti-gun side are perfectly fine with any measure - any compromise, if you will - that helps reduce gun deaths. The problem is the pro-gun side refused to give an inch because ‘FUCK YOU DON’T TAKE MY GUNS’.
The anti-gun side isn’t calling for an all-out ban on all gun ownership - doesn’t matter; the NRA and the rest of the pro-gun side has refused to entertain any measure that might mean fewer dead people.
They do this by insisting that any such measure is really just code for ‘THEY’RE COMING FOR OUR GUNS’
The idea that there’s ‘no compromise on either side’ is just wrong.
:rolleyes: I don’t do this often, but – LOL. Seriously, this is the stupidest thing I’ve read all week. Gun owners are proud of being gun owners. SECOND AMENDMENT! CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BABY!
Wrong.
Probably an overstatement on my part. There is some very small compromise on both sides. But really, I just like saying ‘wrong’ and asserting that by fiat.
No, they aren’t calling for it because if they did it would be a losing strategy for them. Instead, their actions and the actions of folks on their side speak volumes.
From the NRA’s side (which I’m not on btw), they have seen the anti-gun side try to systematically gut the 2nd for decades. In addition, often loopy legislature similar to the arbitrary limit a certain dog in this thread proposed to try and be forced through for no other good reason that it’s another step on the road to a ban (and it makes the anti-gun folks feel like they are accomplishing something, anything). Things like the AWB is a really good example of both of these in action, but it’s not limited to that.
Um, no. SOME of you on the anti-gun side might be perfectly fine with such measures, just like some of us nominally on the pro-gun side are good with regulation, but neither of us constitutes a majority of either faction. One has but to look at this thread to see it in action.
You are basically blinded by your partisanship on this one. You only see the abuses on the extreme pro-gun side because that’s what you are opposed too. But it’s both sides and their unwillingness to compromise or to even be able to have a civilized dialogue on this, coupled with the lack of trust permeating this topic that has us gridlocked. Just like the gridlock on the broader political front.
I didn’t say what you quoted there. Please attribute quotes to the proper poster.
There you are again. I don’t need to add a word to that.
Do you think you sound like someone who is actually talking about the world we are in? Because we are down the road a bit from then, and you still haven’t moved one millimetre down it.
Like, with a prosecutor doing his job, and donald shitting himself and acting irrationally about it. He sure doesn’t act like the Marlboro man right now does he? But what could there possibly be to discuss once damuri makes his pronouncement in make believe land?
Hey you should be happy. I could have said “You get 1/2 a gun. Take it or leave it”
My point is that “more guns = more likely” is not a required condition for anything. It is a blunt construction, may be true may not be. Like most other things in the world. What would this have to do with sensible law enforcement of people with many many guns? I don’t have to prove you are more “likely” to use common sense about the world.
People have proposals for public policy all the time. Do you start thrashing with rage when anyone makes a proposal based on their values and they do not give you data? You know this is a message board and not Congress? Do you accept data from all news sources? Are you OK with the mainstream media?
Is the rage and vulgarity necessary to disagree?
No. You haven’t got it straight.
No, I’m not aware of anything in the Bible (or Koran or Torah or any other religious text) that talks about the 2nd Amendment or a God/gods given right.
No, I don’t think I can clarify any of these strawmen and hyperbolic comments. Maybe someone else will take that on.
*As president, Hillary will:
Expand background checks to more gun sales—including by closing the gun show and internet sales loopholes—and strengthen the background check system by getting rid of the so-called “Charleston Loophole.”
Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.
Keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill by supporting laws that stop domestic abusers from buying and owning guns, making it a federal crime for someone to intentionally buy a gun for a person prohibited from owning one, and closing the loopholes that allow people suffering from severe mental illness to purchase and own guns. She will also support work to keep military-style weapons off our streets.*
That’s not much a a gun control program, and single issue gun voters never vote Democrat anyway. It is fairly close to Trumps, actually.
All I did was paraphrase your statement.
Do you need a cite that many gunnists regard the right to bear arms as a God-given right? I’ve posted such cites before. Can you do your own Googling for this?
You can pry my arrogance out of my cold dead hands.
Can you show me where I said anything remotely like ‘reason gun nuts say they need guns is to protect themselves (law-abiding, every one) from criminals’? How about ‘The reason they oppose gun registration is that it will make it easier for police to catch them if their gun collection becomes criminal’. The second one, if I really squint is close, though you’d need to substitute ‘police’ for ‘the government’ or the ‘gun grabbers’. But the first one? Show me anything I said that is close to that.
I don’t give a flying fuck with the ‘gunnists’ do or don’t say. Did I ever say anything remotely like that? If not, then it’s a strawman, since you were asking me. Should I ask someone who is a liberal to backup some crazy crap every left winger spouts?
So, I thought I’d link to this fairly long video. To paraphrase 'luci, lefties and liberals, shields up…it’s a conservative channel (it’s actually more libertarian, but same thing to most folks around here)!! While I don’t agree entirely with the video, it goes over some of the points I’ve tried to make in this and other gun threads, especially about perspective and scale.
I used to think that too but frankly I can’t find a lot of ways for sheetrock to stop a round that would put an intruder down. I’ve tried everything from Glazer to Frangible to Buckshot. If you are worried about your neighbor then frangible bullets seem to work great, but if you are worried about your kid in the next room, its still punching through plywood at that distance.
Yeah but that’s what they’re aiming for.
Sure in a “i’ll take half now and take half later” sort of way.
I don’t think that should keep us from making good policy decisions but a lot of gun owners simply cannot trust gun control folks.
And where exactly do you think we are now? AFAICT, the Russian mafia hasn’t coerced Trump to do anything yet AFAICT. Russia isn’t blackmailing Trump to do anything AFAICT
Yes, but frequently, they don’t vote at all.
She wants to repeal the law that prevents people from suing manufacturers for criminal acts committed with their products.
She wants to get rid of the rule that prevents the NICS system from just sitting on background checks to prevent people from passing background checks. Right now if they do not reply with a yes or no within 3 days the dealer may release the firearm. If you get rid of that rule, you could just fire everyone at NICS and noone could buy a firearm at a gun store.
I’ll take “Look, It’s A Strawman Argument” for $1000, Alex! That you’re absolutely certain that no gun control advocates will be happy until they have taken ALL YOUR GUNS, then of course there’s no compromise.
Someone said something about “Ignorance isn’t a permanent condition.” That applies pretty well.
The alcohol control people have
“I keep a handgun in my hand at all times. That’s so I can hold off the enemy long enough to get to one of my shotgun cabinets. The shotgun in turn will lay enough cover fire to get to my cellar where my real weapons are: bazookas, cannons, anti-aircraft guns.”
I think we are where you are very naive in your descriptions and assumptions about the subject of donald and russia.
You latched onto something that was a trivial part of an attempt to give a contour for how donald and his gang may have been compromised by a foreign power in ways that you are naive enough to dismiss as “retarded.” You did it multi times, not just once, like you describe. It is clear that the “retarded” is the point with you. You enjoy it. You grasp and hold like a bone, against all logic, that donald trump is not vulnerable in many ways, via his connections with other people, money politics, and crime as if you are talking about a cartoon. You seem to know nothing about the factors involved from your words that I’ve read. That’s why I still remember the word “retarded” now. It was like hello, mirror.
They *did *ban it. Eighteenth Amendment, Volstead Act. Hear of those?
I think we should just pass a law making it super-illegal to kill a lot of people. Anybody who disagrees with me is clearly in favor of killing a lot of people.