- 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: Another shooting rampage, this one in Virginia Beach
Posted on 6/1/19 at 6:10 pm to fallguy_1978
Posted on 6/1/19 at 6:10 pm to fallguy_1978
quote:
I own a number of firearms that my grandfather gave me before he died.
that's really cool... yeah, i had a Remington and Mossberg shotguns that my grandfather had that i sorta inherited after he died.... was my duck hunting guns when i used to hunt...
quote:doesn't mean we can't create one, does it? i mean just doing nothing is not helping... so, way i see it, you'd be the original owner of said gun, since the registry would start, hypothetically of course, now, making you the original owner... congrats!
There's no mechanism in place
quote:
I'd prefer it to stay that way.
is it because of the confiscation thing? just curious... b/c i see the registry (again, no one, for sure in my hypothetical, much like in the real world here and now, wants confiscation) as nothing but good... helps track stolen and lost guns, protects gun owners, appeases anti-gun people, etc...
0
Posted on 6/1/19 at 6:10 pm to chRxis
quote:
do you really see everything with a political slant?
You did nothing to address what I brought up. What happens when a doctor decides you aren't mentally competent to own a firearm because you're a trump supporter? Or if he's a conservative, if you're a bernie supporter?
If you think that won't happen, you're very naive.
quote:
nd fine, you are entitled to a 2nd opinion,
And when the government decides the original opinion is the "correct" one?
quote:
again, over time, this demographic will be substantially wiped out, in my hypothetical... severe punishment, being enforced, in real time...
The problem is your idea is just that...a hypothetical not grounded in reality.
Posted on 6/1/19 at 6:13 pm to chRxis
quote:
to be completely honest, a large majority of us that support gun control do NOT want confiscation AT ALL... why some of y'all are so scared about this
I don't think we'll ever see large scale confiscation in my lifetime but I won't be surprised if we see AR15s outlawed and possession made a crime. They seem to be the boogeyman right now despite being used a miniscule amount of murders.
After that, it'll be magazine capacity, semi autos etc.
The fact is there are plenty of lefties that would prefer full confiscation. Maybe not you but that faction certainly exists.
Posted on 6/1/19 at 6:24 pm to Centinel
quote:
You are arguing about what should be. I'm telling how it actually is.
look, change has to start somewhere... all the hand wringing and non-action ain't helping, and so what if i'm an idealist... we are averaging a mass murder event (4 or more people killed) around every 60 days.... that's crazy...
quote:
Just look at the recent wave of decriminalization or defelonization in large urban centers for theft.
what does that have to do with what we are discussing, serious question.... or are you just trying to conflate the topic at hand? i'm legitimately confused as to what this has to do with the conversation we are having, so if you could clear that up for me, so i can respond, that would help me out...
quote:and that's wrong, IMO... that's why we are where we are today... like i said, concessions must be made on BOTH sides, or else none of this works...
One side has been comprising for almost 100 years with ZERO compromise from the other
quote:that's how GOOD agreements tend to work...
Why should I appease both sides?
quote:i know.. and at no point have you actually defined any of it... you haven't stated what the problem is, nor given any ideas of a solution... feel free to though
Address the problem, not the tool I've said this four or five times now.
Posted on 6/1/19 at 6:29 pm to chRxis
quote:
what does that have to do with what we are discussing, serious question.... or are you just trying to conflate the topic at hand? i'm legitimately confused as to what this has to do with the conversation we are having, so if you could clear that up for me, so i can respond, that would help me out...
Laws on the books are being rewritten to be less strict. You're advocating for the opposite.
quote:
and that's wrong, IMO... that's why we are where we are today... like i said, concessions must be made on BOTH sides, or else none of this works...
Good. So let's start with repealing some of the compromises I listed originally so there is some compromise from the other side.
Removing the 1986 NOPA and 1993 Brady Acts are a good start.
quote:
you haven't stated what the problem is
People who feel the need to kill random strangers.
quote:
nor given any ideas of a solution
Address why there are people who feel the need to kill random strangers?
This post was edited on 6/1/19 at 6:31 pm
Posted on 6/1/19 at 10:15 pm to chRxis
quote:
but i do think that making them harder to obtain legally,
What part of individual civil right does your tiny, underpowered brain not quite get? Also, it's well documented that such restrictions have zero impact on criminal firearms-related homicides.
quote:
while also severely imposing laws that make the illegal sale and access to firearms something that people will not want to do
Like existing Federal laws with $250,000 fines and 10 year sentences? Laws that have a less that 1% conviction rate? You are truly stupid.
quote:
and also mandating a registry of all guns already in the hands of people and those that are manufactured, so that they can be traced back to whoever has them or uses them, are some points that need to happen to appease both sides....
That stupidity only appeases one side. Registration is an absolute non-starter and two states have already closed long-standing firearms and ballistic tracing programs because they were expensive and produced virtually zero results. All you are doing here is parroting talking points from your abundant ignorance on this topic. Get a clue kid.
Posted on 6/1/19 at 10:24 pm to chRxis
quote:
then what are police for? your sentiment is an overly simplistic view, as you cannot account for every variable at all times... you just can't... there is a reason for police, laws, etc...
Yet again, your ignotance is the only thing impressive about you. Warren v. DC, police have no legal duty to protect individuals that are not in custody. Police only owe a duty to the general public and that means individuals are truly responsible for their own protection. His view isn't simplistic, it just takes into account an understanding of reality.
quote:
but imagine a world where you really don't have to...
It's only in your imagination that such a world can exist...
Page 11 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News