- 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: Shooting in Virginia: LA representative Steve Scalise shot
Posted on 6/15/17 at 7:04 am to TigerJeff
Posted on 6/15/17 at 7:04 am to TigerJeff
quote:
Rapidity of fire, and amount of deliverable fire in a short time span. What is it about "military-style rifle" that you don't get?
You're scared of your own shadow, aren't you? And I would guess you're scared of some words as well.
2
Posted on 6/15/17 at 7:46 am to LongueCarabine
Video of shooting is on breaking911.com right now, I'd link but the button is broken
SIAP
SIAP
Posted on 6/15/17 at 8:17 am to LongueCarabine
Says the guy who feels the need to own a personal arsenal. OK, whatever. Jesus.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 8:22 am to TigerJeff
I own > 80 guns... some are (assault rifles) and none have ever shot another human. I dont know how, but its true.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 8:23 am to TigerJeff
I hate that I keep engaging in derailing this thread, but here we go
What difference does it make if a responsible, law abiding citizen wants to have an "arsenal" of "military-style" firearms that they enjoy shooting, talking about, looking at, etc?
What difference does it make if a responsible, law abiding citizen wants to have an "arsenal" of "military-style" firearms that they enjoy shooting, talking about, looking at, etc?
Posted on 6/15/17 at 8:57 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
It makes a difference when someone calls me "scared of my own shadow" ... and fails to see the irony.
Look, although I agree w/ former Chief Justice Burger that the standing interpretation of the 2nd Amd. is a "fraud" (google "Burger on 2nd Amendment"), I have no problem w/ people arming themselves for personal protection. I am suggesting that we as a nation have a further discussion about additional measures that can hopefully curb all of this gun violence. I agree that handguns are more involved in shootings, on a daily basis. Do I advocate banning handguns? No. There, I am willing to accept the (ridiculous, in my view) level of violence in our country, as an unfortunate byproduct of this constitutional right.
You engage with semantics with rapidly-firing rifles. I call them machine guns. What I mean is, they're military-style weapons. You want to operate a military-style weapon, then sign up at your nearest recruiting station. Just my opinion.
A poster earlier provided what I thought was a reasonable justification for owning such rapidly-firing weapons -- "9/11 happened, you just never know." OK, I'll buy that I guess. Willing to further cogitate on it.
The justification "to protect us from our own country?" Doesn't hunt. In what area of citizen-government interaction is the government MOST intrusive? It's interactions with the police. And here, in this "arena," what do you guys say - you guys who are on edge, on the ready, to stamp down a "tyrannical" government? Sit there, obey every order of the officer, accept his/her insults, do whatever you have to do not to get shot. If you act like you're 'supposed to' you won't be hurt."
You want specificity in legislation that affects ownership of weapons that are conducive to mass shootings .... great. Participate in the process. By all means, I agree that specificity is certainly needed, and I wouldn't want passage of overbroad regulations that could be interpreted to affect legitimate hunting rifles.
All I am saying is that the all too frequent shootings, mass shootings, are (again, in my view) unacceptable, and starting from that premise, what can we do to slow it down? The solution certainly doesn't just involve regulation of guns, but, it certainly does include it to an extent. Yes, we have existing regulations, but obviously they aren't working.
Look, although I agree w/ former Chief Justice Burger that the standing interpretation of the 2nd Amd. is a "fraud" (google "Burger on 2nd Amendment"), I have no problem w/ people arming themselves for personal protection. I am suggesting that we as a nation have a further discussion about additional measures that can hopefully curb all of this gun violence. I agree that handguns are more involved in shootings, on a daily basis. Do I advocate banning handguns? No. There, I am willing to accept the (ridiculous, in my view) level of violence in our country, as an unfortunate byproduct of this constitutional right.
You engage with semantics with rapidly-firing rifles. I call them machine guns. What I mean is, they're military-style weapons. You want to operate a military-style weapon, then sign up at your nearest recruiting station. Just my opinion.
A poster earlier provided what I thought was a reasonable justification for owning such rapidly-firing weapons -- "9/11 happened, you just never know." OK, I'll buy that I guess. Willing to further cogitate on it.
The justification "to protect us from our own country?" Doesn't hunt. In what area of citizen-government interaction is the government MOST intrusive? It's interactions with the police. And here, in this "arena," what do you guys say - you guys who are on edge, on the ready, to stamp down a "tyrannical" government? Sit there, obey every order of the officer, accept his/her insults, do whatever you have to do not to get shot. If you act like you're 'supposed to' you won't be hurt."
You want specificity in legislation that affects ownership of weapons that are conducive to mass shootings .... great. Participate in the process. By all means, I agree that specificity is certainly needed, and I wouldn't want passage of overbroad regulations that could be interpreted to affect legitimate hunting rifles.
All I am saying is that the all too frequent shootings, mass shootings, are (again, in my view) unacceptable, and starting from that premise, what can we do to slow it down? The solution certainly doesn't just involve regulation of guns, but, it certainly does include it to an extent. Yes, we have existing regulations, but obviously they aren't working.
This post was edited on 6/15/17 at 9:03 am
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:12 am to TigerJeff
quote:
All I am saying is that the all too frequent shootings, mass shootings, are (again, in my view) unacceptable, and starting from that premise, what can we do to slow it down? The solution certainly doesn't just involve regulation of guns, but, it certainly does include it to an extent.
We don't want to become sitting ducks, like the folks in Europe. There's no way to tell how many mass shootings would or wouldn't have occurred if the 2nd Amendment didn't exist and the American population was disarmed, but I feel like a criminal not knowing if a person is armed or not is a pretty good deterrent. Most of the shootings in this country involve semi-automatic handguns, so if legislation takes away the semi-auto rifles....how long before they try to grab all the pistols too? These kinds of isolated incidents are always going to occur in a melting pot country with 400 million residents.
Also, if it was TRULY about protecting American people, gun control would be wayyyy down the list. Tobacco and sugar cause way more harm and cost taxpayers way more money per year than gun incidents. Do something about cigarettes and sodas....but they won't. Why is that???
It's not about safety and concern, it's about attempting to control the population.
This post was edited on 6/15/17 at 9:17 am
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:15 am to TigerJeff
quote:So do you consider my semi-auto Remington rifle that I've used for 20 years to deer hunt with military-style?
You engage with semantics with rapidly-firing rifles. I call them machine guns. What I mean is, they're military-style weapons.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:16 am to Tyga Woods
These incidents really aren't isolated though, are they?
Maybe the solution or part of it is to somehow try to tighten up access to gun ownership ... before ya'll spit out your morning coffee, what I mean is that how do we prevent nut jobs like Hodgkinson from owning a gun in the first place? I know plenty of people - from all sides of the political spectrum -- who own all types of guns including military-style and I don't fear they are going to do a mass shooting, and they can arm up and play soldier to their little hearts' content -- no skin off my back, true. But how do we keep the crazy Hodgkinson's from having guns?
Maybe the solution or part of it is to somehow try to tighten up access to gun ownership ... before ya'll spit out your morning coffee, what I mean is that how do we prevent nut jobs like Hodgkinson from owning a gun in the first place? I know plenty of people - from all sides of the political spectrum -- who own all types of guns including military-style and I don't fear they are going to do a mass shooting, and they can arm up and play soldier to their little hearts' content -- no skin off my back, true. But how do we keep the crazy Hodgkinson's from having guns?
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:18 am to Tyga Woods
Mass shootings have always happened. The difference today is the wide spread availability of news thanks to the internet and the political agendas of the media
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:21 am to TigerJeff
quote:
what I mean is that how do we prevent nut jobs like Hodgkinson from owning a gun in the first place?
How do we prevent felons from getting guns now?
How do we prevent the sale of heroin and other narcotics to our teemagers?
How do we prevent someome from making a bomb and setting it off at the boston marathon?
All of those things are 100% illegal now... yet happen with ease..
When you want to talk about making these strict gun laws, the only people it will effect are the good law abiding citizens. The felons, nut jobs, idiots, can and will get them still.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:22 am to TigerJeff
quote:
TigerJeff
Less than 18% of gun violence (per WaPo) is committed by a legal gun owner. You want laws to target the 18% and make an already at times arduous process even more so because you do not understand it.
Mass shooting in general occur in areas where carrying a firearm is not allowed. This gives the shooter an upperhand when he knows that he is less likely to face counterfire. In other words legislation for "gun control" has aided in mass shootings.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:23 am to oleyeller
Well said, yeller
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:24 am to TigerJeff
quote:YOU don't have too. I already KNOW they exist. Get your head out of the sand snowflake. Only listening to liberal shite will keep you ignorant.
I'm not inclined to give credence to Soros and Obama boogeymen.
quote:Why do you think you should have the right to limit me? Am I harming anything? Do you have more of anything in your home than you need? Why do you want to make laws that limit me? What have I done? Why don't you look deeper to find out who the is so you can limit the bad guys?
But maybe you can explain to me why you need an arsenal,
quote:As far as protection, the bad guys, snakes and anything else I decide.
what exactly (be specific) you believe you need protection from?
Here is what I believe to be the elephant in the room. Many guns are out there. They came over with Caucasians and have been there ever since and in increasing amounts. Both sides of everything have had them. At this point no amount of confiscation of regulation will get them. The bad guys will be the last to give them up. As such even if I didn't like and use guns I would still want one. As such I don't want any limitations to me and mine to protect ourselves.
quote:Therein lies a most ignorant part of what anti-gunners are guilty of. They are now and have always been one in the same.
My interest is not in discussing handguns, or hunting rifles.
Waaaay back in '77 I watched as 6 liberals lead by Geraldo talk down to a gun expert about "assault" rifles as he quietly pulled a wood stocked semi-auto out, easily removed the wood and replaced it with black plastic. .... You see? They are one in the same. My Remington 742 semi-auto 30-06 can become more dangerous than what that fool used yesterday just by replacing or painting the wood.
quote:Good and necessary is explained above. In fact I'll expand on good. If I am open carrying a handgun or rifle I will either #1. deter any bad guys from starting shite or #2. cause them to shoot me first giving others a precious few seconds to GTFO.
Explain to me why civilian ownership of semi-automatic, military style rifles, and the right to openly carry such rifles, is a good and necessary thing?
Semi-auto: We hunt with them ... and yes, I've needed that 2nd and even 3rd shot to take down an animal so not to lose the animal or allow it suffer.
Military style: As explained above, no difference except black or camo is more stealthy. Would the gun lobby be satisfied if we replaced all the black stuff with wood. That would make them the same as they were before. Some actions were developed for the military however they used the rounds already on the market. Changes were developed or made to actions for military durability.
Military style part 2: What is military style? The military used muskets at one time. I have a bolt action rifle that has a wooden stock. Carlos Hathcock used one in a smaller caliber when he was a sniper in Nam. There is little in the military that is as accurate or powerful to this very day. Is that military style?
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:25 am to TigerJeff
quote:
But how do we keep the crazy Hodgkinson's from having guns?
The same way you keep them from having knives, automobiles, gas, fertilizer, box cutters, etc
You cannot eliminate every threat in yours or anyone else's life. The gun is nothing more than a tool. It will comply with the orders given to it by the owner. The owner's intent is the only thing that matters.
Don't the Marines go by "improvise, adapt, overcome"? Don't you think that's what a person who wants to kill people will do? Timothy McVeigh stands out
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:26 am to TigerJeff
quote:
These incidents really aren't isolated though, are they?
It's not the epidemic the left tries to portray.
quote:
how do we prevent nut jobs like Hodgkinson from ownin a gun
Were there obvious indicators suggesting he was nuts? I disagree with his political views but that's not reason enough to classify him as insane or unstable. The last thing anyone wants is the government, whether it's controlled by Dems or Republicans, is to go person to person deciding who is a nut job. Don't you see how that could snowball into a much larger issue??
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:30 am to Tyga Woods
quote:
Don't you see how that could snowball into a much larger issue??
Only if you're a nutjob..what you hiding?
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:32 am to ThatMakesSense
quote:
..what you hiding?
Haha! My guns!
Posted on 6/15/17 at 10:23 am to oleyeller
quote:
I own > 80 guns... some are (assault rifles) and none have ever shot another human. I dont know how, but its true.
I own a fair amount of guns. A few have taken a human life. Oddly, they are bolt action rifles.
WW2 rifles which saw action. I think the Mosin has 14 notches in the stock. Definitely get an eerie feeling it when shooting it.
Idk what the point of that statement was, but that other guy is a cock gobbler.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 10:54 am to X123F45
quote:
Idk what the point of that statement was
That the gun didnt take anyones life... the person behind it did
Page 44 of 46
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News