Opinion Where do you draw the line on gun regulation?

[rob mafia]

I'm sorry, pisol/hanguns are used inchangablely.

and lolz @ being this wrong/clueless/stupid/etc in a thread about gun laws. 'it's a totally different thing, but it's the same thing!'

 

[blaseblah]

Yes, you mentioning nukes is silly. It's not like you can run down to your military surplus store and pick up a fat boy. You can't get training, certification, and even sourcing the materials is likely illegal.

The point of this thread is determining where you draw the line when it comes to the second amendment. Everyone has a line, even though you're trying to pretend that you don't.

When the second amendment was created, nukes didn't exist. Now they do. So where do you draw the line? Are you fine with the status quo?

 

[rob mafia]

Muskets take forever to load.
Even limiting.mags to 3....i could carry 25 mags and reload easily plus have side arms mid load in case someone gets brave. It wont do anything significant.

...or you could just use a musket with a cylinder.

regardless, this musket shit is retarded. lolz @ anti-gunners advocating for smooth bore muskets. who wants accuracy [more collateral damage], amirite? and funnier, forensics/ballistics just went out the window.

 

[rob mafia]

The point of this thread is determining where you draw the line when it comes to the second amendment. Everyone has a line, even though you're trying to pretend that you don't.

When the second amendment was created, nukes didn't exist. Now they do. So where do you draw the line? Are you fine with the status quo?

when it was created, personal cannons and battleships existed. you really want to go there? sure, play that card.

 

[TriangleMonkey]

We are gonna have a difference in ideas from those whom may have grew up rural or just grew up around guns, whether their parents hunted or like to range shoot from those from countries w/o easily accessible guns or people from parents that didnt raise them with guns around and gun education.


I believe if you are taught at a very young age gun safety education, that can go a very long way in preventing a lot of mishandling out there. It gets that “experimental” phase out of being around guns for the first time too.

 

[helltoupee]

Whatever the US military has access to, should also be available to law abiding American citizens

Is that why the military strictly controls all of it's firearms? I mean, we are talking about trained personnel here, and yet the military highly regulates the use and/or access to firearms by it's soldiers.

I wonder why?

There are certainly parts of the world you can move to where there aren't any restrictions on firearms whatsoever, but unfortunately they are all shitholes that you wouldn't want to live in. Suggesting that private citizens have EASY access to bombs and devices designed to strictly kill large amounts of people is ridiculous.

 

[blaseblah]

The argument about rifles over guns is the idea that apparently it's easier to kill a lot of people with a rifle, so citizens shouldn't have them.

I have no idea.

But in practice it doesn't work that way. Criminals lean towards handguns because they are easier to conceal and easier to commit normal crimes with.

Some guy walking around with a rifle advertising that he is armed is going to draw attention to himself. He probably owns it for hunting or self defense reasons. Or to cosplay as a badass. Criminals on the other hand would want to walk around with a concealed handgun.

 

[helltoupee]

You're the "lazy asshole" using laughable terminology like "assault weapon".

An "assault weapon" is a "rifle" you dumb fuck.

Ya, how stupid are these people.

Don't they know that a Volkswagen and a Ferrari are both just automobiles? Why would anyone in their right mind argue that there is a difference between a VW and a Ferrari when they are both simply "cars"?

 

[bobgeese]

The point of this thread is determining where you draw the line when it comes to the second amendment. Everyone has a line, even though you're trying to pretend that you don't.

When the second amendment was created, nukes didn't exist. Now they do. So where do you draw the line? Are you fine with the status quo?

I'm pretty sure I made my line quite clear. If you are mentally fit, have a clean criminal record, and are trained, you should be able to own whatever you want.


The status quo? No, more people should be armed. School officials should be armed. The more people carrying results in a deterrent for criminals.

Don't kid yourself, the criminals already have weapons. I just want it to be a fair fight.

 

[blaseblah]

when it was created, personal cannons and battleships existed. you really want to go there? sure, play that card.

I'm pretty sure you can go buy a cannon. They are very inefficient for killing a lot of people. Not sure what this has to do with my post or what you are arguing.

 

[blaseblah]

I'm pretty sure I made my line quite clear. If you are mentally fit, have a clean criminal record, and are trained, you should be able to own whatever you want.


The status quo? No, more people should be armed. School officials should be armed. The more people carrying results in a deterrent for criminals.

Don't kid yourself, the criminals already have weapons. I just want it to be a fair fight.

You literally just said owning a nuke is ridiculous. Are you going back on that?

I don't think so. I think you are rational enough to understand that people owning nukes would mean the swift end to society as we know it.

 

[rob mafia]

'm pretty sure you can go buy a cannon. They are very inefficient for killing a lot of people.

btw

 

[Whippy McGee]

If we actually go by the intent.... we were intended to have free access to the same standard issue arm that Light Infantryman have. That does not mean a grenade launcher, but it does mean a full automatic rifle. They should be properly stored and anyone making these guns accessible for criminal activity should be heavily punished.

 

[shankmcgank]

Again, stop being a lazy asshole. We banned assault weapons in the 90s, you can go and look up the definition. I don't recall rifles ever being banned.

Lol, the guy who talks out his ass and posts false and misleading information is calling me a "lazy asshole".

Hilarious.

Why don't you go educate yourself, dummy, instead of making yourself look stupid?

"Hurrr durrrr, I don't even remember them banning rifles"...

"Congress didn't want to ban all semiautomatic weapons — that would ban most guns, period. So, in crafting the 1994 ban, lawmakers mainly focused on 18 specific firearms, as well as certain military-type features on guns. Complicated flow charts laid it all out. Certain models of AR-15s and AK-47s were banned. Any semiautomatic rifle with a pistol grip and a bayonet mount was an "assault weapon." But a semiautomatic rifle with just a pistol grip might be okay. It was complicated. And its complexity made it easy to evade."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ng-assault-weapons-in-one-post/?noredirect=on


Last I checked both the AR-15 and AK-47 platforms are "rifles". So please, "lazy asshole" tell us again how they weren't banned?

I could use some more laughs at your expense.

 

[blaseblah]

btw

Once you've fired a cannon you've played your card and advertised your presence. It also takes a long time to reload. You wouldn't be able to make a quick getaway and take the cannon with you. Anyone could run up on you and fuck your shit up. It also sucks at hitting individual people, you would have to target a crowd. Good at targeting an advancing army in tight formation but impractical today.

 

[blaseblah]

Lol, the guy who talks out his ass and posts false and misleading information is calling me a "lazy asshole".

Hilarious.

Why don't you go educate yourself, dummy, instead of making yourself look stupid?

"Hurrr durrrr, I don't even remember them banning rifles"...

"Congress didn't want to ban all semiautomatic weapons — that would ban most guns, period. So, in crafting the 1994 ban, lawmakers mainly focused on 18 specific firearms, as well as certain military-type features on guns. Complicated flow charts laid it all out. Certain models of AR-15s and AK-47s were banned. Any semiautomatic rifle with a pistol grip and a bayonet mount was an "assault weapon." But a semiautomatic rifle with just a pistol grip might be okay. It was complicated. And its complexity made it easy to evade."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ng-assault-weapons-in-one-post/?noredirect=on


Last I checked both the AR-15 and AK-47 platforms are "rifles". So please, "lazy asshole" tell us again how they weren't banned?

I could use some more laughs at your expense.

So you are well aware of what constitutes an assault weapon but made this dumbass post anyway? Man you're stupid.

 

[shankmcgank]

So you are well aware of what constitutes an assault weapon but made this dumbass post anyway? Man you're stupid.

Yes I'm well aware an "assault weapon" is a "rifle".

Unlike you.

rifle or an assault weapon.

Continue embarrassing yourself.

 

[freakroor]

i'm fine with people having anything with a blast radius smaller than the distance between them and their closest neighbor. No C4 explosive if you live in an apartment for example..

 

[blaseblah]

Yes I'm well aware an "assault weapon" is a "rifle".

Unlike you.



Continue embarrassing yourself.

Were all rifles banned with the assault weapon ban? Are all assault weapons rifles? The answer to both is no. Please stop wasting my time.

 

[MoparOrNoCar]

Why do you think people need assault weapons?
I'm all for protecting yourself and your property if you go through stringent mental health checks etc, but why do you NEED an AR15?

Do you even know the difference in an assault weapon and a non assault weapon?

Also the difference in an AR15 and a standard hunting rifle?