- 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 gun restrictions would you tolerate?
Posted on 5/26/22 at 7:29 am to Eli Goldfinger
Posted on 5/26/22 at 7:29 am to Eli Goldfinger
ZERO !
0
Posted on 5/26/22 at 7:31 am to Eli Goldfinger
Aren't you a big conspiracy guy? You're supportive of more government regulation and tracking?
Posted on 5/26/22 at 7:43 am to Eli Goldfinger
quote:
What gun restrictions would you tolerate?
Zero on law abiding citizens. However on various ABC agencies, I'd like to see them restricted to having none at all. (IRS for example.) Remember they are supposed to work for us, not the other way around.
Posted on 5/26/22 at 7:47 am to AM
quote:
odd felons who have served their time dont lose all their rights. nowhere does the constitution allow for such loss of rights.
Good. Neither does the 2nd amendment.
Posted on 5/26/22 at 7:49 am to BayouBengal51
Id tolerate raising age to purchase to 21 with voter ID requirements nationwide.
Posted on 5/26/22 at 7:49 am to Eli Goldfinger
quote:
What gun restrictions would you tolerate?
None.
Now, if you want to talk about a waiting period and/or updating the databases for felons, mental health patients, etc, then cool.
Posted on 5/26/22 at 7:49 am to BigDawg0420
quote:
Shall not be infringed
What are your thoughts on the phrase “well regulated”?
Posted on 5/26/22 at 7:51 am to Eli Goldfinger
quote:
only have hunting rifles, shotguns, and a few handguns, so I don’t get too fired up over the “assault weapons” debate.
FUD
quote:
While I generally side with AR owners, I can’t stand how they take over shooting ranges and make it a PITA for those of us who just want to shoot a few times to check our hunting rifle.
FUD
quote:
I suppose this would create a database of any guns bought which could be used against us.
Yeah what could go wrong? We should definitely trust the government.
quote:
I think I would be OK with raising purchase age to 21. I think I would be OK with a waiting period.
FUD
Posted on 5/26/22 at 7:51 am to Eli Goldfinger
What vehicle restrictions would you tolerate to stop drunk driving?
Posted on 5/26/22 at 7:51 am to Indefatigable
Hot take.
Posted on 5/26/22 at 7:53 am to the808bass
quote:
Hot take.
It’s a question. Not a take.
People always quote the last phrase but ignore the first one. Those words mean something too.
Posted on 5/26/22 at 7:54 am to Eli Goldfinger
None, strictly because I do not trust the federal government to not abuse the power. They also already selectively enforce the laws already on the books.
Ideally I would be supreme ruler of the world and decide who could buy what.
Ideally I would be supreme ruler of the world and decide who could buy what.
This post was edited on 5/26/22 at 7:56 am
Posted on 5/26/22 at 8:00 am to DawgRebelinAL
quote:
I think this makes sense and put the onus on PEOPLE and not inanimate objects.
1. Raise the minimum age to 21 for rifles. Sorry idiots, but 18 doesn't mean what it used to mean.
2. No real issue with a 3-5 day waiting period.
3. Keep the instant background check but allow it to accept licensed mental health practitioners to put holds if under treatment. This can't be that hard to implement with a simple, discreet method. Make it separate from the law enforcement check. Cops will just abuse this.
4. Expand background checks for private sales so that both parties must pass it. This is a slight nuisance for the law abiding but throws an additional charge for a future perp involved in a gun crime. Throws the book at the seller for selling to a known mook too. Cuts down on trafficking.
i'm for the most part a pro 2A absolutist. if you want a nuclear bomb, have at it. i trust my fellow american with one about as much as i trust my government with one.
that being said, a well regulated militia should have responsible people owning guns. i'm not the arbiter of that and unfortunately the government shouldn't be either.
i think 3 and 4 can be practical, but it would be abused. we already know that the government would have its' citizens punished for wrong think on COVID, and i have no reason to think they wouldn't do the same thing regarding gun ownership.
the root of the problem is that right is too scared of the NRA branch of the party to have anything that looks like gun control happen and the left is too scared of having anything that looks like accountability for one's actions to happen legislatively.
Posted on 5/26/22 at 8:02 am to m2pro
quote:
No commonly pitched restrictions would have stopped this shooter or any others.
The age restriction worked in this case, unless you believe he waited until his 18th birthday to buy the guns for some other reason. Did it stop it? No. Would he have shot up a school had he had to wait until he was 21? I think that's certainly a valid question as he would've grown mentally over those three years.
There is no fail safe solution, especially when there are hundreds of millions of firearms in private hands in this country. We can't let perfect be the enemy of good.
And if you're a legal, responsible gun owner, what the frick do you care about raising an age limit? Or requiring a license to carry? Red Flag laws? None of that impacts you if you're, again, a RESPONSIBLE gun owner.
A lot of y'all probably take your kids out to shoot. Do you just send them out in the backyard, alone, to go figure it out or do you work with them to teach them the basics of handling a gun? Why wouldn't we apply that same logic to all new gun owners?
Posted on 5/26/22 at 8:06 am to mmmmmbeeer
quote:
Why wouldn't we apply that same logic
quote:
mmmmmbeeer
Do not pretend that you or any of your fellow mentally ill progressives are capable of this.
Posted on 5/26/22 at 8:08 am to Indefatigable
quote:The militia is "well regulated", not the keeping of arms.
What are your thoughts on the phrase “well regulated”?
Posted on 5/26/22 at 8:09 am to Eli Goldfinger
quote:
I only have hunting rifles, shotguns, and a few handguns, so I don’t get too fired up over the “assault weapons” debate.
Stupid arse Fudds don't get it
They really think that the govt will stop once they get all those scarry 'assault weapons'
Not only that but the 2A doesn't even mention hunting
Posted on 5/26/22 at 8:11 am to mmmmmbeeer
quote:
And if you're a legal, responsible gun owner, what the frick do you care about raising an age limit?
Because that would be allowing a tyrannical government more control. But hey, nbd right?
The problem, as many have likely already said, is clearly mental health and weak family unit / morals. You want to minimize shootings? Find ways to improve the moral fabric of our beloved country.
I'm not religious, but America needs some Jesus for real. Not joking. Not being cute. Humans aren't ready, as a whole, to abandon the fears that religion promises. They definitely can't stop on giving up the love/teachings of Jesus.
Posted on 5/26/22 at 8:12 am to Jake88
In the grammatical context of the amendment, “a well regulated militia” and “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” are synonymous.
It does not read “A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
It reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Comma lives matter.
It does not read “A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
It reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Comma lives matter.
Posted on 5/26/22 at 8:14 am to Eli Goldfinger
Possession of a Firearm by a convicted violent felon should remain illegal. Every other gun law is bullshite.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News