I am fine with some. Waiting periods are fine. Less inclined for age restrictions above 18. Open to almost any discussion that is not outright ban.
Another bombing in Austin tonight
- Thread starter TheOriginalHappyGoat
- Start date
I am fine with some. Waiting periods are fine. Less inclined for age restrictions above 18. Open to almost any discussion that is not outright ban.
That is true of poor drivers that can and do kill people as well.
The idea is to come to some acceptable accommodation for us both. Noodle is more likely to be killed in a car accident by a drunk, sleepy, or inattentive driver than he is to be shot by someone. But he accepts that risk. I believe there is a compromise that can sufficiently reduce the risk enough to make Noodle more comfortable and still allow someone who choose to, to own a gun. I personally would like the option should I ever choose to exercise it.
No, no, no, no. Do not try to dissemble with analogies. I asked you a direct question. What is the burden on you if your right to buy semi-automatic, high-throughput rifles is taken away? Answer that question directly, please.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Well I believe I have a constitutional right to own them for one. So I guess I feel the same burden is put upon me as it would be if you chose to restrict speech, my ability to practice religion, etc. The burden on me is not to prove a right I already have, the burden on you is to provide a valid reason it should be taken away. I don't think, "I am scared" is a valid reason.
What burden does my ownership place on Noodle? I have no quarrel with him, I am not going to shoot Noodle with any hypothetical weapons I may purchase. What is really being asked is for the 99% of people who are responsible to give up a constitutionally protected freedom to reduce the fear of a statistically insignificant event of happening.
Again, there are far more statistically significant negligent events that one could and should worry about if you are afraid of having your life taken by an idiot with a killing machine. So we can discuss restrictions and the like and actually enforce the restrictions we have and go from there. But asking people who really are not a burden to give up something because some people with that item can be...well, I do not find that to be valid.
It's funny. I always consider myself a supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Until I talk to someone else who supports the 2nd Amendment. Then I realize they really support the 2nd Amendment. I'm beginning to think the problem is I don't fetishize it. Like gun rights literally give these people an erection. I don't go quite that far.
That's not an answer. I want to know what your actual burden is. If all of your semi-auto rifles are taken away, what exactly do you suffer, specifically? Saying that you suffer no longer owning them isn't an answer. I want to know what the actual negative effects on you are.
If you get bored with respectful, jump into the Putin thread.And I have to hop out for now, life beckons.
Has been good to have a respectful conversation about this though.
I say close the loop holes, require all State and Federal info to be checked (I mean how stupid is it that all States aren’t participating) and enforce what we have on the books. I think both sides of the debate would feel better about it.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I believe you don’t have a right to a weapon of war under our constitution. In the same way that grenades, Claymores, and machine guns are illegal and a public health threat - so are modern semi-auto rifles.
The problem with your logic is that you’re looking at this from an economical perspective. That’s not the correct lens. There is no tangible benefit gained by law abiding semi-auto rifle owners that outweighs the threat to public health. These are not home defense weapons. These are not sporting weapons. They are fun to shoot at ranges and are otherwise used most efficiently for killing at close and long range. It took me all of three days of practice in Basic before I had gone from never having shot a round in my life to knocking down a target at 250m without any difficulty. They’re deadly accurate, eviscerate bodies, and don’t belong in public ownership.
You have a constitutional right to handguns, shotguns, and non SA rifles.
Semi auto would include a Ruger 10/22, and any handgun that is not a revolver.... am I correct in your intention above?
Rifles. Semi-auto rifles. This is a key distinction that we've been talking about for a long time.
That would be a Ruger 10/22.....no way hunting rifles are gonna be lumped in.... ridiculous
Why not?
Although if you want to make an exception to the ban for rimfire, I'd be fine with it, and I bet Ranger would, as well.
I didn’t have time for a thorough search but the linked WAPO article provided some interesting perspectives WRT the difficulty we generally experience in Congress with difficult issues. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-no-fly-list-loophole/?utm_term=.da6371aa6480
FWIW the thread regarding Congressional dysfunction has not caught on yet.
How do we do what? Is it prevent senseless violence. There are certainly things that can and should be done to limit it. Of course, your irrelevant hint regarding taxes isn’t one of them.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Only restrictions that I’d put on rimfire .22 LR shooters are magazine capacities. That weapon technology shares pinpoint accuracy with a .223 but a lot less energy.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
It’s not about the guns for a lot of them. For many, the NRA and peer pressure have convinced them that the “give no inch” mentality on guns is the litmus test of a “real conservative.” It’s highly irrational and a detriment to societal progress.
Edited to replace autocorrect error
Last edited by a moderator:
I told my coworkers the other day that the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a bomb is a good guy with a bomb.
Show me a guy more committed to his cause than Kaczynski..... the Austin guy broke protocol very early in comparison..... if someone is willing to live in a cabin for 20 years....gonna be hard to catch up with....there is off the grid then there is OFF THE GRID
It's tougher to stay "off the grid" these days given all the traffic cams and outdoor and indoor security cameras. I knew when the guy started utilizing FedEx his goose was cooked.
We are all just fortunate that he was nowhere near as smart as he and many in the media thought evidently he was. Turned out he was what I thought he was: just some dumbass gamer playing out some sick fantasy...
My regret with all of these sick individuals is that if life is really that bad they don't either seek help (best option) or that they just go ahead and off themselves without harming anyone else (final option).
Again... mental health laws are scary.... quite a line to walk.
I don’t care what you legislate . At some point, the plant eater starts eating meat
Similar threads
