LogicIsForSquares Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 http://www.businessinsider.com/joe-manchin-due-process-gun-control-2016-6 The dumb shit senator from my state is disappointed that "due process" is holding up his quest for more gun control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 I understand that they throw "terror", "terrorist" all that bullshit around this argument to appeal to the dumb people in this country to allow gun control. But this is what it comes down to, the government has a list that people's names get put on: - That nobody tells you you're on, or for what reason - the only way you find out is when you're denied boarding a flight - The criteria that puts you on this list is broad and vague, there's no clear definition of what puts you on this list. A tweet could put you on the list, for example. - It's a fucking enormous hassle to get taken off of the list, especially if you are a foreigner , but that's mostly because it's harder for them to complete the process. As a citizen you have to do a bunch of bullshit through homeland security and there's no clear time frame as to when you'll be off the list or how long it takes. But it's ok to go ahead and use these lists to take away a constitutional right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPPT1974 Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Yeah but still we are living in a post 9/11 world. And trying to make us a little more aware of our surroundings. And that it is about trying to take away those rights for those who try to harm the USA or people. And it is rightfully deserving! Harm innocent people you pay the consequences over your actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Everybody should learn how to operate a firearm tbh, I think the phobia would be a lot less for a lot of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 no, it isn't about that. It's about a foot in the door to undermine our 2nd Amendment. "universal gun registration" has nothing at all to do with these hideous crimes. it has to do with charging high registration fees, and not allowing guns to be handed down to heirs. it's about "eleminating" guns from the good guys. and the "terror watch list" - good guys have been mistakenly placed on the list, and went throught HELL to get off it. This muslim terrorist gets on it, investigated twice, and immediately was taken off it. It's obamao policy - turn everything upside-down, inside-out, and bass-ackwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Everybody should learn how to operate a firearm tbh, I think the phobia would be a lot less for a lot of people. I don't think you can call it a phobia just to delegitimize the arguments od those you disagree with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrb12711 Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 But this is what it comes down to, the government has a list that people's names get put on: - That nobody tells you you're on, or for what reason - the only way you find out is when you're denied boarding a flight - The criteria that puts you on this list is broad and vague, there's no clear definition of what puts you on this list. A tweet could put you on the list, for example. - It's a fucking enormous hassle to get taken off of the list, especially if you are a foreigner , but that's mostly because it's harder for them to complete the process. As a citizen you have to do a bunch of bullshit through homeland security and there's no clear time frame as to when you'll be off the list or how long it takes. But it's ok to go ahead and use these lists to take away a constitutional right. Mark down this day, because perhaps for the first and last time I 100% agree with what you're saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 I don't think you can call it a phobia just to delegitimize the arguments od those you disagree with "We cannot allow these 500-round assault clips for glocks" I'm not delegitimizing anybody's dumb argument, I just don't like when idiots open their mouths about something they know nothing about. A certain phobia certainly exists because people don't know anything about guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Mark down this day, because perhaps for the first and last time I 100% agree with what you're saying. If they clean it up and use due process, then I think everybody - including the NRA, will have absolutely no problem prohibiting gun sales to people on the list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 I don't think you can call it a phobia just to delegitimize the arguments od those you disagree with Like homophobia? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrb12711 Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 If they clean it up and use due process, then I think everybody - including the NRA, will have absolutely no problem prohibiting gun sales to people on the list. Definitely. I think my biggest thing about "gun control" to me is this. I'm sure most of you understand the idea behind the second amendment was the ability to arm yourself against the government should it truly be needed. If this was a threat to modern American society, I would not be in favor of stricter laws on what type of firearm one can buy and the process to do so. Let's face it though people, this just isn't the case unless you have a Cal level of tinfoil hat on. I think we as a society can realize that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right of all people, but that doesn't mean someone can go get a damn AR-15 without much more than a background check. I get it, this dude could have taken a lot of lives with just a handgun or otherwise lower capacity round firearm. But taking common sense measures like the one noted above is at least a start that, in my opinion, is a completely logical compromise to stem mass casualty events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Its astounding you can be put on a no fly list without knowing fuck why ur on or even know tjat ur on it at all. Do they actually allow you to buy a ticket but tjen deny you at the tsa line? So they make you eat that ticket? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Its astounding you can be put on a no fly list without knowing fuck why ur on or even know tjat ur on it at all. Do they actually allow you to buy a ticket but tjen deny you at the tsa line? So they make you eat that ticket? You buy a ticket but you can't check in to the flight, so when you go to the counter they just tell you they can't give you a boarding pass. Idk about getting a refund, may be up to the airline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Like homophobia? WSS Sure. Realizing gay marriage should be legal happens without anyone being a homophobe. It is the right thing to do without claiming any phobia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Definitely. I think my biggest thing about "gun control" to me is this. I'm sure most of you understand the idea behind the second amendment was the ability to arm yourself against the government should it truly be needed. If this was a threat to modern American society, I would not be in favor of stricter laws on what type of firearm one can buy and the process to do so. Let's face it though people, this just isn't the case unless you have a Cal level of tinfoil hat on. I think we as a society can realize that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right of all people, but that doesn't mean someone can go get a damn AR-15 without much more than a background check. I get it, this dude could have taken a lot of lives with just a handgun or otherwise lower capacity round firearm. But taking common sense measures like the one noted above is at least a start that, in my opinion, is a completely logical compromise to stem mass casualty events. And even if the govt attacked its own citizens, what are you going to do with your AR 15? What can you really prevent? If the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to give the people a fighting chance, they don't have it. Unless we're allowed to own tanks, jets, etc. Amazing to think times have changed since a musket was the Modern fire arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted June 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 And even if the govt attacked its own citizens, what are you going to do with your AR 15? What can you really prevent? If the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to give the people a fighting chance, they don't have it. Unless we're allowed to own tanks, jets, etc. Amazing to think times have changed since a musket was the Modern fire arm. Vietnam and Afghanistan show that people can lead a prolonged resistance without the need for air support or armor. Would it absolutely suck? Sure. But you can do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 You need to use guns to go and take people's guns. -- I love the AR platform. Sport, hunting, defense, whatever. It's a great multi-purpose rifle. I'm absolutely against banning it of course, but I'd be open to some more steps in order to obtain one. That doesn't mean NY-style where I have to spend hundreds of dollars and wait for months and months only to get rejected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 And even if the govt attacked its own citizens, what are you going to do with your AR 15? What can you really prevent? If the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to give the people a fighting chance, they don't have it. Unless we're allowed to own tanks, jets, etc. Amazing to think times have changed since a musket was the Modern fire arm. Theres some truth to this. Most of u fat sweaty out of shape hogs would die horribly to a professional tactical assault. Even if u had military grade weaponry.....the guys coming ng at you have thousands of hours with those weapons and thousands of ours undergoing elite level training. Going to the range a couple times a month means nothing. Woodys right, unless we were given LAWS and Stingers.......zero chance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 baloney. Those who won our independence fought against a professional army, with cannons, and great numbers. they still won. There are ways to fight an opponent, even if the opponent has a 2 x 4, or a knife, etc. It wasn't just the entire British gay army - it was small groups of them oppressing the pioneers with violence and intimidation, "in the name of the king" on their own terms. You have to read up on the War of Independence. Characterizing it as joe redneck going against the entire arsenal and manpower of the American military is nonsense. I know it's a goofy scenario - but imagine if corrupt asswipe obaMao or mafioso higgardly created so much trouble in our country, that it was used to bring in UN "peace troops", as dumb as that sounds. all hell would break loose. And those UN "peace forces" are notorious for terrible crimes on a large scale in other countries. On the more non-goofy front - consider that if they could disarm Americans for the most part, the people would be easily intimated by racial violence, government threats, illegal alien criminal violence... and they would be depending on gov protection.... which would cost a lot. It would be, say, a "protection tax"... a fee for keeping a local small "security force" in your local county/city. And those obamao security forces (remember he said he would need one?)... would be totally loyal to.... the leftists in our WH. May as well have rogue groups of British redcoats beating the hell out of anybody who annoys them, and who take all the money and property you have, etc. Think French resistance- Europeans had resistance groups all over Europe, from many countries. Going up against the nazis? seriously? Yes. Very seriously. Those WWII resistance were not bend over sissies like JRB - they were serious kickass business. And those resistance fighters didn't have all the big guns and manpower that the nazis had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Do you really not see the difference between the Revolution and modern times? What are you going to do to me if I have a jet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Vietnam and Afghanistan show that people can lead a prolonged resistance without the need for air support or armor. Would it absolutely suck? Sure. But you can do it. Didn't that include a lot of shitty terrain? Not suburbs and highways? How would you defend yourself is the govt wanted to drop a bomb on your house? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 . I think we as a society can realize that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right of all people, but that doesn't mean someone can go get a damn AR-15 without much more than a background check. I get it, this dude could have taken a lot of lives with just a handgun or otherwise lower capacity round firearm. But taking common sense measures like the one noted above is at least a start that, in my opinion, is a completely logical compromise to stem mass casualty events. jrb ***************************************** An AR-15 is the same action as a .22 semi-auto rifle. Pull the trigger once, fire once. Bigger bullet. I'm tired of you whiners talking like the AR-15 is an automatic weapon- as in, machine gun. STFU ? I thought your background checks were the answer,... eh? OF course not, but you libs wouldn't listen. So your next sissy step is to say that since what I said is true, you shouldn't be able to buy a .22 semi-auto rifle without much more than a background check. Perhaps you should read up on historical disarming of countries around the world. It is only "tin foil hat" because you are the creator of nonsense scenarios. It isn't joe redneck vs the entire army, air force, etc. It's a local oppression of rights- like a corrupt sheriff and deputies, like "Walking Tall" a good bit. Maybe a completely unwarranted martial law imposed. Even a martial law that is legit - corrupted by corrupt police/military troops, like in Kartina. A nice elderly lady got bullrushed, injured, because they were confiscating all weapons. If you don't think it can happen - you are wearing the tin foil hat, dummy. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/08/secret-history-hurricane-katrina "Malik Rahim, a Vietnam veteran and longtime community activist, was one of the organizers of the Common Ground Collective, which quickly began dispensing basic aid and medical care in the first days after the hurricane. But far from aiding the relief workers, Rahim told me this week, the police and troops who began patrolling the streets treated them as criminals or "insurgents." African American men caught outside also ran the risk of crossing paths with roving vigilante patrols who shot at will, he says. In this dangerous environment, Common Ground began to rely on white volunteers to move through a city that had simply become too perilous for blacks." "Zeitoun was among thousands of people who were doing "Katrina time" after the storm. There was a complete suspension of all legal processes and there were no hearings, no courts for months and months and not enough folks in the judicial system really seemed all that concerned about it. Some human-rights activists and some attorneys, but otherwise it seemed to be the cost of doing business. It really could have only happened at that time; 2005 was just the exact meeting place of the Bush-era philosophy towards law enforcement and incarceration, their philosophy toward habeas corpus and their neglect and indifference to the plight of New Orleanians." *********************************** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 so, jrb, that isn't much of a stretch to say an obamao or higgardly would declare an unwarranted martial law on a major city, and confiscate all weapons, and treat citizens like criminals just because the enforcers can. Any reason would work for them - a mass shooting, an outbreak of the measles, or zita? virus, Lament the lack of extreme interference with Americans' gun owner rights - but it's the left that has caused the legit opposition to the left's ulterior motives. "common sense, ...' bull crap. A British gov official got knifed and gunned down, murdered. They have gun control. There are many examples - Paris.... it isn't mass gun control that is the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted June 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Theres some truth to this. Most of u fat sweaty out of shape hogs would die horribly to a professional tactical assault. Even if u had military grade weaponry.....the guys coming ng at you have thousands of hours with those weapons and thousands of ours undergoing elite level training. Going to the range a couple times a month means nothing. Woodys right, unless we were given LAWS and Stingers.......zero chance That would be if every single member of the military just hopped on board with the genocide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted June 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Didn't that include a lot of shitty terrain? Not suburbs and highways? How would you defend yourself is the govt wanted to drop a bomb on your house? Resistance will be from the places with difficult terrain. The coasts are already willingly disarmed and everyone is packed together. We didn't bomb Vietnam or Afghanistan? Like I said, not pretty but very possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/06/17/3-key-democratic-claims-on-guns-get-fact-checked-by-wapo-heres-what-they-found/ Liberals love lies that fit their narrative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/06/17/ny-times-reports-astonishing-ar-15-claim-then-olympian-shooter-sets-record-straight/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrb12711 Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 so, jrb, that isn't much of a stretch to say an obamao or higgardly would declare an unwarranted martial law on a major city, and confiscate all weapons, and treat citizens like criminals just because the enforcers can. This just isn't happening, this isn't a movie.. For God's sake, your examples of the revolutionary war in 1776 and even WWII pale in comparison to the armed world we live in today. You can dream of a Tom Cruise style action movie where you defend your world against oppressors, but that's not reality. The US government if it wanted to would roll over everyone and be laughing while doing it. . I think we as a society can realize that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right of all people, but that doesn't mean someone can go get a damn AR-15 without much more than a background check. I get it, this dude could have taken a lot of lives with just a handgun or otherwise lower capacity round firearm. But taking common sense measures like the one noted above is at least a start that, in my opinion, is a completely logical compromise to stem mass casualty events. jrb ***************************************** An AR-15 is the same action as a .22 semi-auto rifle. Pull the trigger once, fire once. Bigger bullet. I'm tired of you whiners talking like the AR-15 is an automatic weapon- as in, machine gun. STFU ? I thought your background checks were the answer,... I literally never said that one time, and nothing pisses me off more than when people put words in my mouth. Stop being a bitch and actually attempt to listen. No one is attempting to take away your second amendment rights. However, when a strong pattern of violence rears its head it's time to reconsider how we operate as a society. We can be an armed society that protects its constitutional rights without offering weapons with near instant mass casualty potential at essentially a drop of a hat. Let me ask you it this way-What is it gonna take? How many times can this happen, how many innocent people must die before you realize it's time to make logical changes? Sometimes the greater good calls upon making unpopular changes, and I'm happy to be part of this to stem the tide of innocent people being slaughtered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Handguns kill way more people than ar 15s (domestically) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.