Sensible Gun Control

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: Sensible Gun Control

    I agree with the libbys on some of this stuff.  A private transfer and ANY purchase of a firearm should be performed by a licensed dealer and require a criminal background check.  Including gun shows.  If gun shows can't perform backgrounds and follow fed guidelines they shouldnt exist.

    Clip size, AR's...leave them alone.  More people were murdered by hammers and blunt instruments last year than by rifles...FBI statistics.

    I understand the recent anger and emotion but taking it out on law abiding citizens who DON'T commit mass murder or have a mental problem doesn't make sense.

    It's like banning cars for all because of the drunk driving of a few.  It's like keeping thin healthy people from drinking Pepsi because fat people drink 4 a day with a gallon of ice cream and a pizza. 

    Guns aren't the problem, people are the problem.  We need more birth control......

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: Sensible Gun Control

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    Can we please stop calling it "gun control"?  Because it's really not.

     

    I don't want to control guns.  I want guns and gun ownership limited to people who can operate them in a safe and prudent manner.

     

    "Gun safety" is far better...it addresses the concerns better and might actually be achievable.

     

     



    Limiting types of weapons is gun control.

    Licensing requirements such as background checks to keep guns from those who shouldn't have them is smart policy.

    Licensing requirement to take a course and be certified for a weapon is gun safety

    I had my 2 day basic pistol course last year and I'm currently deciding on which Sig Sauer 22 pistol to puchase the 226 or 229 in either the 15 or 20 round magazine with the the 9mm caliber x-change kit.  I guess I'm going to have to order soon.

     



    get the 226...in high capacity...good luck finding ammo!!!!! 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Sensible Gun Control

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to macnh1's comment:

     

    ...another day has gone by and none of my high capacity ammo clips have caused any harm....

     



    Another day gone by and my nuclear weapon has caused no harm...

     

     



    You have a nuclear weapon do you????

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Sensible Gun Control

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to macnh1's comment:

     

    ...another day has gone by and none of my high capacity ammo clips have caused any harm....

     



    Another day gone by and my nuclear weapon has caused no harm...

     

     

     



    You have a nuclear weapon do you????

     



    Anything goes if it does not cause harm in and of itself.  Anything goes in silly land.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Sensible Gun Control

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to macnh1's comment:

     

    ...another day has gone by and none of my high capacity ammo clips have caused any harm....

     



    Another day gone by and my nuclear weapon has caused no harm...

     

     

     



    You have a nuclear weapon do you????

     

     



    Anything goes if it does not cause harm in and of itself.  Anything goes in silly land.

     



    Riiiiiiight....gotcha....sigh

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Sensible Gun Control

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Look to Canada?

    Canada has no Second Amendment.

    Are you suggesting we should repeal the 2d Amendment?



    Yes.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Sensible Gun Control

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to UserName99's comment:



    No.  For better or worse, the debate over whether there is a right to bear arms is over - the Supreme Court has ruled that there is such a right and there is no reasonable chance that such right will be rescinded in the foreseeable future.

     

    Doesn't mean we can't have reasonable rules and restrictions though.

     




    I think we have "reasonable rules and restrictions". Background checks are required, no fully automatic weapons are allowed and no armor piercing rounds!

     

    That's sensible!



    A huge percentage of guns are sold with no background checks.  Kids don't wear armor.  And since fully automatic weapons are banned, then I guess banning assault rifles won;t violate the 2nd Amendment.

    Background checks for all before the purchase of a gun.  Only licensed gun dealers can sell a weapon.  If you want to sell your gun, it has to be to a licensed gun dealer.

    Magazines can't hold more than 10 rounds.

    No assault rifles.

     

    The alternative - ban all weapons.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Sensible Gun Control

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:


    A huge percentage of guns are sold with no background checks.  

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Can you share the link that proves the above statement?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Sensible Gun Control

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    Anything goes if it does not cause harm in and of itself.  Anything goes in silly land.



    Yeah but people who oppose an assault weapons ban have drawn an invisible line in the sand that somehow makes that logic .... go away.

     

     


    Not a single one of them has been able to articulate a logical principle that would prevent their "it's not the weapon, it's the person" position from extending not only to individual possession of assault weapons, but to individual possession of any weapon.

    tvoter said people should have fully automatic weapons......but not RPGs.........   because...
    .....because shut up he's right.

    All they are able to do is, like tvoter and pinkie, state a conclusion as if it were an argument and say "sigh"

     

     

    Too bad their position is completely ret*rded. They know this. That's why all they can do when you point out how far their position leads is say "Mission Accomplished....run away! run away!"

    I've stated over and over assault weapons should be banned. So I guess I've said a bit more than "sigh". But you know that.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Sensible Gun Control

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    I've stated over and over assault weapons should be banned...But you know that.



    I thought I saw you say that once in these threads. But then you argue againstevery argument for a ban.

     

    Here, I'll alter it for you:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment: "Anything goes if it does not cause harm in and of itself.  Anything goes in silly land."

     

    Yeah but people who oppose an assault weapons ban have drawn an invisible line in the sand that somehow makes that logic .... go away.

     

     

     


    Not a single one of them has been able to articulate a logical principle that would prevent their "it's not the weapon, it's the person" position from extending not only to individual possession of assault weapons, but to individual possession of any weapon.

     

    tvoter said people should have fully automatic weapons......but not RPGs.........   because...
    .....because shut up he's right.

     

    All they are able to do is, like tvoter state a conclusion as if it were an argument and declare Mission Accomplished.

     

    Too bad their position is completely ret*rded. They know this. That's why all they can do when you point out how far their position leads is say "Mission Accomplished....run away! run away!"

    Others, like pinkie, support a ban but oppose all arguments for a ban. Not sure what to do with them, but at least they came to the right conclusion.



    I thought I saw you say that once in these threads. But then you argue againstevery argument for a ban.

     

    Ah but I don't argue against the ban. I argue against those people who think the ban will actually make much of an impact. I have provided more than enough factual evidence that a ban on assault weapons isn't going to lessen gun violence. Assault weapons aren't used in majority of gun violence. Not too mention that one can buy an AR-15 as long as it doesn't have two of the following: collaspable stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash suppresor, and grenade launcher. Well sh!t...it's still a goddamn AR-15. It's still a high-powered rifle that shoots devastating ammo. 

    So yes I argue that the ban is a bit of a joke considering the above.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Sensible Gun Control

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    Look to Canada?

    Canada has no Second Amendment.

    Are you suggesting we should repeal the 2d Amendment?

     



    Yes.

     



    Well, at least you are honest.  your views are really out there, but you are honest. Getting rid of the 2nd is critical to what, exactly?  What is accomplished by repealing the 2nd amendment, other than giving liberals this euphoric sense of having done something stupid?

    I suppose you want to repeal the other amendments as well?  The 5th, the 4th, maybe the 1st?

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from jedwardnicky. Show jedwardnicky's posts

    Re: Sensible Gun Control

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    I don't understand the purpose of gun control of legal, legitimate gun owners.

    let me know when you want to focus on illegal weapons, then you'll have my ear.

    until the, the liberal position on gun control inonsensically.



    Legal, legitimate owners of guns, by definition, are a result of gun control (see "well regulated").

     

    Did you actually say "inonsensically"?

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Sensible Gun Control

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Well why do you support the ban if you think it won't accomplish anything on the violence front?

     

     

    I think two main things about it:

    Assault weapons + high capacity ban will increase the probability of fewer deaths per incident, and to a lesser extent, may deter someone dead set on avoiding capture and killing themselves after a mass shooting.

    The guns that should be legal are those closest to the 2nd Amendment's historical purposes, as identified by the majority in Heller: Individual right to possess for self-defense.

     

     

    But if I didn't think the first of those two reasons, I'm not sure I would support a ban on assault weapons. If I really didn't see any meaningful possibility that banning them would accomplish anything, well, why bother?



    The guns that should be legal are those closest to the 2nd Amendment's historical purposes, as identified by the majority in Heller: Individual right to possess for self-defense.

     

    Can an assault rifle not be used for self-defense???

     

    Well why do you support the ban if you think it won't accomplish anything on the violence front?

     

    Why does violence need to be the reason to support the ban? I think certain weapons belong only to military. 

     

    Assault weapons + high capacity ban will increase the probability of fewer deaths per incident, and to a lesser extent, may deter someone dead set on avoiding capture and killing themselves after a mass shooting.

     

    Based on the fact that overwhelming number of mass shootings have been done by non-assault weapons I just don't buy into this theory.

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts