- 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
1
Posted on 6/14/16 at 9:03 pm to INFIDEL
quote:
Besides, if this fricker didn't have a gun, what's to stop him from chaining a door shut and burning the whole bar down?! He doesn't suddenly become non murderous frick because he doesn't have a gun.
Again, I get this type of argument too, but the status quo doesn't try to stop him at all. The FBI occasionally foils terrorist plots that involve bombs or other types of alternative weapons. They can't do a damn thing right now about him walking in and buying an AR-15. We might not be able to stop him completely, but we don't need to make it easy for him, and the status quo makes it easy. That is a problem, but I don't have the solution.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 9:04 pm to Jake88
quote:
Once it's powerful enough to limit gun rights you don't know what will happen.
Maybe so, but right now you can prevent a citizen from flying, which is a much bigger issue to the average Joe than preventing them from buying a gun.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 9:05 pm to Boston911
quote:
Secondly, I don't trust the gov't either. But I definitely don't trust a foreigner who's on a watch list in a gun store.
The entire idea of a no-fly list or a no-gun-purchase list is ludicrous. Even if the list was free of politics, corruption and incompetence, it is utterly foolish to decide that we are somehow protected from the malicious intent of these people by preventing them from flying or buying a gun legally. If they are willing to kill, eliminating these two particular activities from their broad range of weapons and tactics is completely futile in preventing them from carrying out their intent.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 9:05 pm to slackster
Flying is not a constitutional right.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 9:07 pm to slackster
quote:
being added arbitrarily, and that is a concern that should be addressed, but this part makes no sense. It may or may not stop gun violence from those on the list, but saying that it won't be effective therefore we should continue to keep access as open as possible
My point is that there are only 500 citizens on the list. That's 500 people effected by such a ban. Why even bother? Because it opens a door for restricting gun ownership. It does jack shite otherwise. How can people not see this?
Posted on 6/14/16 at 9:10 pm to slackster
The Burden of proof isn't on those arguing to keep the status quo 
Posted on 6/14/16 at 9:11 pm to INFIDEL
I would support an outright ban on semiauto rifles (which I don't) before the no fly list shite. Besides MANY more people are killed with hand guns then "assault weapons". What do think their objective is ?
Posted on 6/14/16 at 9:15 pm to INFIDEL
quote:
there are only 500 citizens on the list. That's 500 people effected by such a ban. Why even bother? Because it opens a door for restricting gun ownership. It does jack shite otherwise. How can people not see this?
Because it seems about as practical a restriction as you'll find. If you're too risky to fly, you should be too risky to buy a weapon. The alternative is to abolish the list altogether, but if we're going to have it, restricting access to gun ownership appears to be a no brainer.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 9:19 pm to hawkster
Go with me on this for a second, let's say there are 10 more mass shooting by Islamic terrorist in the next year, what would your plausible solution be?
quote:
If they are willing to kill, eliminating these two particular activities from their broad range of weapons and tactics is completely futile in preventing them from carrying out their intent.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 9:20 pm to INFIDEL
quote:
Besides, if this fricker didn't have a gun, what's to stop him from chaining a door shut and burning the whole bar down?! He doesn't suddenly become non murderous frick because he doesn't have a gun.
The other thing that keeps getting mentioned is that these restrictions aren't going to stop someone intent on killing Americans by other means, and to that, all I can do is sigh. 99% of people who have that opinion also want the USA to refuse immigrants from the ME on the account of their potential terrorism ties, which is practical to me, but can't we argue that refusing them entry isn't going to stop someone intent on murdering Americans? See how dumb it sounds when you take it to that level? Keeping them out of America may not stop them, but it damn sure makes it more difficult. The same is true of potential gun restrictions. Can they still commit mass murder with other tools? Of course, but I'll be damned if we're going to make it easy for them. That is my entire premise in this debate - what are practical methods that make things a little more difficult to pull off the massacre in Orlando?
Posted on 6/14/16 at 9:23 pm to Boston911
If our government was ever as bad as the 3 percenter patriot types think it is or is headed to be, what kind of people do you think it would define as terrorists? The kind of people who would be likely to resist the tyranny. The watch list could and would turn into an enemies list for the regime.
You can say it would be futile to resist our government in this day and age, but really that's a farcical position based on nothing but feeling, and it's exactly what TPTB want you to think.
It's a bad situation we have now, where lunatics are acquiring the very tools that most people, law enforcement, military, etc use for good reasons and using them to murder people. We all can agree that it's a bad thing. But there is no cure for it.
You can say it would be futile to resist our government in this day and age, but really that's a farcical position based on nothing but feeling, and it's exactly what TPTB want you to think.
It's a bad situation we have now, where lunatics are acquiring the very tools that most people, law enforcement, military, etc use for good reasons and using them to murder people. We all can agree that it's a bad thing. But there is no cure for it.
This post was edited on 6/14/16 at 9:25 pm
Posted on 6/14/16 at 9:24 pm to slackster
Amen Slack!
quote:
but I'll be damned if we're going to make it easy for them
Posted on 6/14/16 at 9:24 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Because you have to be educated on the issue to discuss it a meaningful way. I'm sympathetic to this call to action, but I also recognize there are roughly 300k folks on this list. There is no due process to put them on there, it's a simple administrative act. There is no due process, no notice given to the individual, no opportunity for rebuttal and, more importantly, no administrative procedure to remove oneself and there are 10s of thousands of folks on there erroneously.
While I'm obviously not for terror suspects buying guns, I'm also not so cavalier as to discard the rights of others, particularly when we have seen the abuse of political opponents by the party in power, particularly with executive agencies.
So, there is all of that, just as food for thought.
So you prefer people on the terrorist list be able to buy guns because they have some people on the list who are not terrorist? I understand the political element of it, but I guess I am just a "better safe than sorry" type guy.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 9:25 pm to slackster
quote:
The alternative is to abolish the list altogether,
Now THAT is a common sense policy.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 9:26 pm to OweO
quote:
So you prefer people on the terrorist list be able to buy guns because they have some people on the list who are not terrorist? I understand the political element of it, but I guess I am just a "better safe than sorry" type guy.
You're actually a "it's not a right I exercise anyway so I don't care if they take it away" guy.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 9:28 pm to Jake88
I hope you realize we have to compromise on this issue. We can not dig our heals into sand and say all or nothing.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 9:33 pm to slackster
quote:
That is a problem, but I don't have the solution.
This case is worse than most of us are addressing. He had been vetted at a higher level in order to work as a guard. It's my understanding that he carried guns in public with all the training, background checks and permits necessary.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 9:33 pm to uway
quote:
You're actually a "it's not a right I exercise anyway so I don't care if they take it away" guy.
Why does it have to be that way? Why can't practical restrictions be in place? I'm pro gun rights - always have been - but I also see the writing on the wall that many of these objections are tin foil in nature and restrictions are probably coming down the pike regardless. I'd like to be proactive and control the conversation so that the retaliatory legislation that eventually passes won't be so heavy handed. If you want good natured American citizens to keep their relatively free access to weapons, you'd do well to start considering alternatives that restrict access for others, because if it happens unilaterally it is going to be bad for everyone.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 9:39 pm to slackster
quote:
Because it seems about as practical a restriction as you'll find. If you're too risky to fly, you should be too risky to buy a weapon.
If you are too risky to fly, are you not too risky to visit a shopping mall, or a football game, or an amusement park? Removing access to one public venue, and one avenue for obtaining a weapon is ridiculously futile.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News