- 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: Relying on a branch to government to decide if you have a right that threatens government
Posted on 8/5/19 at 3:04 pm to Ace Midnight
Posted on 8/5/19 at 3:04 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
It had no effect on crime. Because crimes, statistically, are not committed with rifles.
The FBI stats have been shared all over the internet and they aren’t hard to find. If people are still ignorant about how few murders are committed with rifles it’s because they want to be ignorant.
Posted on 8/5/19 at 3:07 pm to Flats
And, from a Constitutional standpoint it would be more legitimate to ban all firearms other than rifles than to just ban rifles.
That is how upside down this is.
I mean, we started shooting redcoats because they were coming to disarm the militia FFS...
That is how upside down this is.
I mean, we started shooting redcoats because they were coming to disarm the militia FFS...
Posted on 8/5/19 at 3:31 pm to Relax
quote:
Wrong. Perhaps you should go look at the stats. Yes the ban had loop holes so yes it could have been better, but to state that it had no affect is false.
I did. Mass killings did not change. Mass shootings did. They had less of those but still had them. However they resorted to knives, fire, and vehicles besides guns. The amount of mass killings averaged about 5 a year before the ban and about 5 a year after the ban.
You believe we won't have mass shootings if we suddenly get rid of firearms (which is impossible) and you might be right. However we would still have the same exact death toll per year. The idiots would resort to a different weapon. Bombs, vehicles, fire, knives all very capable of killing dozens. Take your head out of your arse.
Posted on 8/5/19 at 3:35 pm to saintsfan1977
quote:
You believe we won't have mass shootings if we suddenly get rid of firearms (which is impossible) and you might be right. However we would still have the same exact death toll per year. The idiots would resort to a different weapon. Bombs, vehicles, fire, knives all very capable of killing dozens. Take your head out of your arse.
Then why is there a ban on fully automatic weapons? You're an idiot and your still incorrect on the stats, compare the body counts.
Posted on 8/5/19 at 3:38 pm to Relax
quote:
Then why is there a ban on fully automatic weapons?
There isn’t. There are over 600000 Owned by US citizens
Posted on 8/5/19 at 3:51 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:There's an equal case before them right now but New York is trying to weasel out of it bc they know it's could be bigger than Heller bc it could do away with gun permits essentially. it could properly judicially establish the right to carry as the 2nd A says. Heller intentionally only applied to homes.
All we have between us and them is Heller. Heller was 5-4. If Heller were to be heard today, it would be 5-4.
Posted on 8/5/19 at 3:51 pm to Dawgfanman
quote:
There isn’t. There are over 600000 Owned by US citizens
Wrong again. They are prohibited, the only ones you can buy are in existing circulation before the law took effect, require a special permit that is extremely difficult to get approved for and also since you are likely purchasing an antique and rare collectible weapon it will be extremely expensive. What you absolutely can't do is go to your local gun shop and purchase a new fully automatic weapon.
Nice try tho. The truth is your 2nd ammendment is already very infringed upon and for very good reason, most sane people would agree with the logic behind this and its perfectly sensible to apply the same logic to additional weapons capable of inflicting higher body counts in shorter periods of time.
Posted on 8/5/19 at 4:03 pm to Relax
quote:
Wrong again. They are prohibited, the only ones you can buy are in existing circulation before the law took effect, require a special permit that is extremely difficult to get approved for and also since you are likely purchasing an antique and rare collectible weapon it will be extremely expensive. What you absolutely can't do is go to your local gun shop and purchase a new fully automatic weapon.
I simply said they aren’t banned, as evidenced by the 600000 in circulation. Sorry your original post was inaccurate.
Posted on 8/5/19 at 4:09 pm to Relax
quote:
Then why is there a ban on fully automatic weapons? You're an idiot and your still incorrect on the stats, compare the body counts.
You can purchase fully automatic weapons dumbass.
Im comparing the body counts in Australia moron. Go look at Australia's mass killings list before and after the ban. An average of 5 deaths per mass killing both before and after the ban. Not a goddamn thing changed. They took their guns away over a single mass shooting that killed 35 and injured 24. Before that incident they still weren't using guns for every massacre.
It's a fricking lie to claim that Australia gun laws worked when they only had a single mass shooting of that magnitude in their entire history. They had a shooting this year that resulted in the same average they always have.
Posted on 8/5/19 at 4:12 pm to Dawgfanman
You knew exactly what I meant. Banned for manufacturing for consumer sale.
Posted on 8/5/19 at 4:18 pm to Relax
quote:
Wrong again. They are prohibited, the only ones you can buy are in existing circulation before the law took effect, require a special permit that is extremely difficult to get approved for and also since you are likely purchasing an antique and rare collectible weapon it will be extremely expensive. What you absolutely can't do is go to your local gun shop and purchase a new fully automatic weapon.
Nice try tho. The truth is your 2nd ammendment is already very infringed upon and for very good reason, most sane people would agree with the logic behind this and its perfectly sensible to apply the same logic to additional weapons capable of inflicting higher body counts in shorter periods of time.
You can purchase any fully automatic firearm produced before 1986 since that's when the bill was passed. You want a Rambo 2 M-60 machine gun? You can buy it.
Ive been to the range where a guy had 2 fully automatic firearms with his permit. One was a full auto AK 47, the other was an old Frankenstein firearm. I shot both.
It's not hard to get a permit. It's fricking expensive as shite to buy a decent fully automatic rifle. About $35k minimum. Uzi and smaller weapons can be had for much less.
You can bet your arse if it wasn't for price, everyone would own full auto firearms. Since we can't everyone just buys multiple AR 15s or builds them for a few hundred bucks. It's America buddy. frick you and frick Yea
Posted on 8/5/19 at 4:20 pm to Relax
quote:
You knew exactly what I meant. Banned for manufacturing for consumer sale.
So that’s all the left wants? Because you were discussing banning semi autos..I don’t think banning their sale and leaving several hundred million in circulation was what you were talking about...
Posted on 8/5/19 at 5:56 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:OK, please just tell me what you're looking for that would be a fair comparison. I don't understand the hair you are trying to split here.
Yes. Obviously.
Posted on 8/5/19 at 6:25 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
All we have between us and them is Heller. Heller was 5-4. If Heller were to be heard today, it would be 5-4.
THAT is how close it is to being defined away.
(ETA: That's how important 2016 was - if HRC had been elected, Heller today would be 6-3, the other way. :letthatsinkin:)
Yes. Many liberals want to the second amendment interpreted in such a way that there is no individual right to bear arms.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News