- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What would we accomplish with a sweeping ban on firearms?
Posted on 10/6/17 at 9:40 am to roadGator
Posted on 10/6/17 at 9:40 am to roadGator
quote:
I think we can end the debate now.
There was never a real debate. You are asking for things that could never be supplied in order to defend the right of people to legally modify their semi-auto rifle into a fully automatic rifle. I'll allow you to have that side of the argument. I'll stick with logic.
1
Posted on 10/6/17 at 9:42 am to Haughton99
quote:
to defend the right of people to legally modify their semi-auto rifle into a fully automatic rifle
I never did that.
This post was edited on 10/6/17 at 9:45 am
Posted on 10/6/17 at 9:48 am to wickowick
I don't know. What would really be the point of a civil war? I doubt very seriously the majority of our armed forces would take up arms against us to take our weapons. Realize that a overwhelming huge portion of our military is country folk who grew up hunting or shooting. The police sure ain't gonna do it. So who's gonna take them? Are the Liberals so much into the banning of guns that they would allow a foreign military onto US soil and wage war against American citizens? Then what happens after they get the guns? How do you then get them to leave after the confiscation is over?
Posted on 10/6/17 at 9:50 am to roadGator
quote:
I think we can end the debate now.
And under your burden of proof, no murderer could ever be convicted without an eye witness.
This post was edited on 10/6/17 at 9:58 am
Posted on 10/6/17 at 9:53 am to Haughton99
quote:
Any under your burden of proof, no murderer could ever be convicted without an eye witness.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 10:01 am to Haughton99
quote:
Stupid strawman arguments have no value worth debating. They should be called stupid because they are. Not a single lawmaker is calling for the outright banning of all firearms
You're dumb. Feinstein wanted an out right ban on ALL guns. So no need for you to continue in this adult conversation. Buh bye now
Posted on 10/6/17 at 10:06 am to vodkacop
Posted on 10/6/17 at 10:09 am to vodkacop
quote:
You're dumb. Feinstein wanted an out right ban on ALL guns. So no need for you to continue in this adult conversation. Buh bye now
No she didn't. Simply not true at all. The 22 year old quote was taken out of context and she was obviously talking about assault weapons. Youtube is your friend.
Edit: and I don't agree with banning "assault weapons" or any weapon because some people think it looks scary. But it doesn't change the fact that she wasn't talking about all types of firearms.
This post was edited on 10/6/17 at 10:12 am
Posted on 10/6/17 at 10:09 am to vodkacop
This is the proposed bill that Haughton is talking about and claims just bans bump stocks. Apparently, he didn't even take the time to read it.
Like many libs, he also likes to throw around the old fear mongering "assault rifle" distinction, which does not exist in reality. A rifle is a rifle. Assault is a behavior. There is no such thing as an assault rifle.
quote:
“It shall be unlawful for any person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a trigger crank, a bump-fire device or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun,” the bill states.
Like many libs, he also likes to throw around the old fear mongering "assault rifle" distinction, which does not exist in reality. A rifle is a rifle. Assault is a behavior. There is no such thing as an assault rifle.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 10:15 am to LSU Patrick
quote:
This is the proposed bill that Haughton is talking about and claims just bans bump stocks. Apparently, he didn't even take the time to read it.
The ban bans anything that allows you to fire a semi-auto at an accelerated rate. I fully support.
quote:
Like many libs, he also likes to throw around the old fear mongering "assault rifle" distinction, which does not exist in reality. A rifle is a rifle. Assault is a behavior. There is no such thing as an assault rifle.
I've said in multiple post, including the one above yours that I don't support any ban on "assault weapons". It's stupid to ban a firearm because it looks scary.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 10:15 am to LSU Patrick
quote:
any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment or accessory that is designed or functions to
Seems very broad. Any components that can possibly be used to make a bumpstock? I confess I have nor do I care what a bumpstock us but that is a very broad view. Oh and Fienstein said ALL guns.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 10:18 am to Haughton99
quote:
The ban bans anything that allows you to fire a semi-auto at an accelerated rate.
Which could include the size of magazines. A larger magazine allows the shooter to put more bullets down range in a shorter period of time. If people want to pass a useless bill to ban bump stocks, it needs to clearly define and limit to bump stocks.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 10:19 am to vodkacop
quote:
Any components that can possibly be used to make a bumpstock?
They will have to ban rubber bands and even shoe strings.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 10:21 am to roadGator
quote:
They will have to ban rubber bands and even shoe strings.
And technique.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 10:22 am to vodkacop
quote:
Oh and Fienstein said ALL guns.
It's obvious you haven't watched the video where she said it. Context matters.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 10:27 am to Haughton99
Will banning bump stocks make you FEEL better?
Because there's no evidence that they will make you safer that I'm aware of.
If you have that evidence lets look at it and discuss it.
You don't want to ban rubber bands or belt loops, right?
Because there's no evidence that they will make you safer that I'm aware of.
If you have that evidence lets look at it and discuss it.
You don't want to ban rubber bands or belt loops, right?
Posted on 10/6/17 at 10:38 am to roadGator
quote:
Will banning bump stocks make you FEEL better?
Feelings? Who the frick is talking about feelings? I can tell you what. If I had a loved one killed in Vegas I'd FEEL pissed off that it was so easy for this guy to legally convert a firearm into one that could fire as many times as he did in a short amount of time.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 10:41 am to Haughton99
Don't lie. Because there are other methods to get the same result as a bump stock banning them will just make you feel better. The quicker you admit that the better your arguments can be.
You can save the drama for an op ed piece and straw man argument about if you had a kid killed.
You can save the drama for an op ed piece and straw man argument about if you had a kid killed.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 10:42 am to Haughton99
quote:I wonder why the Obama Administration did that?
If I had a loved one killed in Vegas I'd FEEL pissed off that it was so easy for this guy to legally convert a firearm into one that could fire as many times as he did in a short amount of time
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News