Shooting at Conn Elementary 27 dead including kids

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by houghtam

Answer this question honestly:

Why shouldn't it be legal for you to own a .50 caliber Browning M2?

It should be. But since it's fully automatic, it isn't. But banning full auto weapons was going to be the answer. But like government always does, they want to take more.

[Requiem]

Wah, I want my guns, wah.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

It should be. But since it's fully automatic, it isn't. But banning full auto weapons was going to be the answer. But like government always does, they want to take more.

Okay, so fully automatic weapons should be legal?



Can I own an RPG or a mortar an M119 Howitzer in this hillbilly utopia of yours?

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by W*GS

In the meantime, tell us how we can lessen the ~100,000 deaths and injuries from firearms we have every year.

I like how you started lumping in 'injuries' to get to 100,000 when 'injuries' are probably 75% of that number.

You're a football guy, right? How many football related injuries do you think there are in a year? I'll give you a hint. Based on injuries alone, your gummint easily has 10x as many reasons to ban football. Well over 1 million injuries per year. In one sport.

Nope, instead something hits a headline, and we start regulating 310 million people because of rare mass killings that happen to .000026% of them. Is it your goal to get that down to .000020%? We're down near lightning-strike territory here.

At what level are you just willing to accept that bad things happen, and you can't stop them all?

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

I like how you started lumping in 'injuries' to get to 100,000 when 'injuries' are probably 75% of that number.

You're a football guy, right? How many football related injuries do you think there are in a year? I'll give you a hint. Based on injuries alone, your gummint easily has 10x as many reasons to ban football. Well over 1 million injuries per year. In one sport.

Nope, instead something hits a headline, and we start regulating 310 million people because of rare mass killings that happen to .000026% of them. Is it your goal to get that down to .000020%? We're down near lightning-strike territory here.

At what level are you just willing to accept that bad things happen, and you can't stop them all?

I'm sure the families of the victims at Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, etc. would sure like to have that extra .000006% back. This wasn't an accident. To compare it to people voluntarily putting themselves in harm's way (as you and many of the people on this board like to remind us when an NFL player wants to sue a league they claim is giving them disinformation) is sickening.

You're basically saying that children assume the risk of being shot when they go to school, and there's nothing we can do about it, so...go get you some learnin', Billy!

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by houghtam

Try approximately 45% of adults (~100,000,000) with 300,000,000 guns.

It will never happen, not because the government is afraid of all you big bad gun owners...here's a clue: they're not.

It's because there is literally no reason to think that the government is coming after your guns. Just certain, reasonable types of arms and ammo. What would be the benefit? Seriously. Please explain to me what benefit the government could hope to gain from getting rid of all guns? They already own you.

Who are "they" anyway? We the people excluded them from our constitutional republic. They used to kings, noblemen, etc. We used to be the peasants. The government is nothing more than a vehicle to serve those who control it. Wall Street Lobbyists control it today. That's who "they" are. It wasn't always like this. The republic is supposed to serve you, not own you. Wall Street owns you.

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by houghtam

Okay, so fully automatic weapons should be legal?



Can I own an RPG or a mortar an M119 Howitzer in this hillbilly utopia of yours?

So where do you draw the line? First it was full auto. Now it's semi auto. A kid brought a shot gun to school today. Are shot guns next?

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

So where do you draw the line? First it was full auto. Now it's semi auto. A kid brought a shot gun to school today. Are shot guns next?

I already posted where I draw the line.

There is no reasonable explanation for a citizen to own certain types of weapons, let alone a heavy machine gun. "Because the government might come and get us" isn't a reasonable explanation, and, statistically speaking, neither is "to keep my family safe at home".

[cutthemdown]

People already can't own machine guns Houghtam. That implies full automatic weapon. I agree no need for us to have full auto which is just a waste of ammo anyways.

[cutthemdown]

now California wants to go even further then they already have. Never mind what they have done so far didn't do much. I'm glad i have what guns i need already because pretty soon you won't be able buy them anymore.

[Bacchus]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

now California wants to go even further then they already have. Never mind what they have done so far didn't do much. I'm glad i have what guns i need already because pretty soon you won't be able buy them anymore.

That's bull****, the only thing the gun laws will do are better background checks, and an assault weapons ban and maybe and extended clip ban. Nothing radical just common sense.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

We're down near lightning-strike territory here.

Very poor analogy. Very very poor.

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

At what level are you just willing to accept that bad things happen, and you can't stop them all?

These "bad things" don't happen anywhere near as frequently elsewhere as they do here - so what exactly does the RKBA as interpreted gain us? Freedom? Oh yeah - the freedom to get shot at school, at the mall, at the movies, at work, on the road, etc., etc.

[Elway 4 Life]

Originally Posted by Bacchus

That's bull****, the only thing the gun laws will do are better background checks, and an assault weapons ban and maybe and extended clip ban. Nothing radical just common sense.

Agreed. I would like them to incorporate some sort of gun safety course before you can take your purchased firearm home as well.

Obama/Biden need to make the decision soon because a lot of these guns companies as well as ammo manufacturer's are gouging all these morons that are running to go get them some weapons before they caint no more.

Gun sales are at records highs nationwide right now. People are fearful that if they don't get something now then its gonna be to late. I agree with you Bacc, they will ban AR's and huge capacity clips and a better more thorough process.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

So where do you draw the line?

You tell us. Where do you draw the line? If you could get your hands on one, should you be able to own a WMD? A tank? An Apache helicopter? All would follow under the broad umbrella of "arms." If not, why not?

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

You tell us. Where do you draw the line? If you could get your hands on one, should you be able to own a WMD? A tank? An Apache helicopter? All would follow under the broad umbrella of "arms." If not, why not?

The law drawn so far away from those weapons already bringing them up is so foolish and not even close to a real argument.

Hey i would like to buy a semi auto rifle that shoots a .223 bullet......but could you make it look cool with a collapsable stock and a pistol grip? ARRRRRRRRRG WHAT DO YOU WANT A ****ING TANK OR A NUCLEAR BOMB!

how can you not see that doesn't match up inferno?

[cutthemdown]

Thats the difference between an AR and just a regular ranch .223 style rifle. A friggin pistol grip, collapsable stock...... big friggin deal it shoots the same bullet in a semi auto fashion. There is no practical difference.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

The law drawn so far away from those weapons already bringing them up is so foolish and not even close to a real argument.

Hey i would like to buy a semi auto rifle that shoots a .223 bullet......but could you make it look cool with a collapsable stock and a pistol grip? ARRRRRRRRRG WHAT DO YOU WANT A ****ING TANK OR A NUCLEAR BOMB!

how can you not see that doesn't match up inferno?

You're missing the point. I assume most people are sane and don't want a nuclear weapon. The problem is, if you agree that there are "arms" that a citizen should not possess, then you are implicitly agreeing that there is a debate to be had about where to draw the line. But the NRA gun nuts only want to complain about attempts at gun control...they will by and large side-step the issue of where to draw that line. What should the applied standard be when determining whether or not a citizen should be able to possess a particular weapon? Ant was blistering houghtam for his suggestions, but I'm curious to know where he would personally draw the line, and on what basis.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

You're missing the point. I assume most people are sane and don't want a nuclear weapon. The problem is, if you agree that there are "arms" that a citizen should not pocess, then you are implicitly agreeing that there is a debate to be had about where to draw the line. But the NRA gun nuts only want to complain about attempts at gun control...they will by and large side-step the issue of where to draw that line. What should the applied standard be when determining whether or not a citizen should be able to possess a particular weapon? Ant was blistering houghtam for his suggestions, but I'm curious to know where he would personally draw the line, and on what basis.

Thank you, Mr. Secratary of Explaining Things.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

You're missing the point. I assume most people are sane and don't want a nuclear weapon. The problem is, if you agree that there are "arms" that a citizen should not pocess, then you are implicitly agreeing that there is a debate to be had about where to draw the line. But the NRA gun nuts only want to complain about attempts at gun control...they will by and large side-step the issue of where to draw that line. What should the applied standard be when determining whether or not a citizen should be able to possess a particular weapon? Ant was blistering houghtam for his suggestions, but I'm curious to know where he would personally draw the line, and on what basis.

I disagree because we have tons of gun laws already. Not like it hasn't been debated over and over. You could say same thing about dems refusing to cut the budget to raise debt limit. Earlier they were bargaining so does that imply they already agreed cuts were needed?

[cutthemdown]

I draw the line on any weapons that explode, are fully automatic, or has a clip more then 30 rounds. I support a background check to see if you are a felon. The only real issue IMO is the mental illness. I see the point for checking to see if people are crazy. But i worry a list like that is something people will do anything to stay off of including just never seeking help for fear of ending up on some list that says you are unfit. I worry people won't seek mental professionals out for help.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

I disagree because we have tons of gun laws already. Not like it hasn't been debated over and over. You could say same thing about dems refusing to cut the budget to raise debt limit. Earlier they were bargaining so does that imply they already agreed cuts were needed?

That doesn't answer my question: where are the gun nuts willing to draw line regarding the ownership of "arms?" And what is their rationale for drawing that line? Or are they not willing to draw any line at all (i.e. anything can be owned under the umbrella of "arms")? I hear plenty of complaints about "infringing on their rights," but basically nothing regarding what "arms" control (if any) they are willing to accept. Tell us what's acceptable in your view and explain the rationale, and we can work from there.

[DenverBrit]

Alex Jones: Angry little man with guns, motor mouth, anti-First Amendment and a Troofer.

What a ****ing loon he is.



Pee Wee Herman, debates Alex jones.

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

You're missing the point. I assume most people are sane and don't want a nuclear weapon. The problem is, if you agree that there are "arms" that a citizen should not possess, then you are implicitly agreeing that there is a debate to be had about where to draw the line. But the NRA gun nuts only want to complain about attempts at gun control...they will by and large side-step the issue of where to draw that line. What should the applied standard be when determining whether or not a citizen should be able to possess a particular weapon? Ant was blistering houghtam for his suggestions, but I'm curious to know where he would personally draw the line, and on what basis.

We have enough gun laws. I have no problem closing the gun show loophole but that's it. Full auto are banned. An assault rifle is just a rifle that LOOKS scary but it is just a rifle. Shoots one round at a time. Pistols are semi automatic. Shotguns as well. Hunting rifles. Do we ban them next?
Laws and bans don't prevent bad people from doing bad things.
Just be honest, the real agenda is to rid the law abiding civilians in the US of any firearms.

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

That doesn't answer my question: where are the gun nuts willing to draw line regarding the ownership of "arms?" And what is their rationale for drawing that line? Or are they not willing to draw any line at all (i.e. anything can be owned under the umbrella of "arms")? I hear plenty of complaints about "infringing on their rights," but basically nothing regarding what "arms" control (if any) they are willing to accept. Tell us what's acceptable in your view and explain the rationale, and we can work from there.

Already there, fully automatic. Where are you anti gun pussies willing to stop?

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

That doesn't answer my question: where are the gun nuts willing to draw line regarding the ownership of "arms?" And what is their rationale for drawing that line? Or are they not willing to draw any line at all (i.e. anything can be owned under the umbrella of "arms")? I hear plenty of complaints about "infringing on their rights," but basically nothing regarding what "arms" control (if any) they are willing to accept. Tell us what's acceptable in your view and explain the rationale, and we can work from there.

They aren't nuts. There is nothing crazy about liking to own firearms. The line that is drawn is fine right now. We already have sensible gun laws. Its not the laws fault people sometimes murder or commit suicide with a gun.

What is acceptable is nothing that blows up on impact, nothing that is fully automatic.