Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Tiki Bar' started by Gofirstclass, Feb 19, 2018.
Sadly they never do...
A good summary:
There is no question that the right to bear arms is clearly entrenched in US law. And that applies to law abiding citizens, as well as to the criminals that have not yet been caught or those that have been caught, but served their time, or those that are not assessed as criminally insane, just have "anger issues", etc.
What it comes down to is that Americans have made their choice, and have to take the pro's and cons of that choice. US laws have put a huge number of guns into the hands of the people, so now the people feel a need to have the guns to defend against the other people.
It can't be "fixed" without a law change, and democracy determines that.
But..... I see an awful lot of young voters and future voters in the US standing up for change. I expect a lot of them are Republicans (or want to be Republicans), believe it or not. And politicians will turn on a dime in order to get elected or stay elected. Change has way of happening... Darwin figured that out and wrote a book about it.
Anyway, can the moderators please close this down? The easy problems were solved long ago and this one ain't changing based on what is posted here. Lets get back to boating, or a Honda generator bun fight (which I will stay out of).
I just love it when someone cries to the moderators to "close down" a thread. Just stop reading it...simple.
My point was to stop it from getting hostile, not a cry because I was offended. I have very thick skin and have not run from an argument or a fight in my life. Fine, leave it open.
Shut it down ?....that would be un-American. I'm sure someone has something else to add... Who's getting hostile ?
But that's just the point...whether you're offended, pissed off, hostile, crying or just had enough, it doesn't matter. My right to read it should never be infringed upon because you don't want the discussion getting heated.
Well said 420.
Liberals do not understand this phrase, "should never, or shall not be infringed."
I'm curious....are you guys OK with getting rid of bump stocks and the like? Where you at on magazine size?
From a practical standpoint I'm against restrictions on either. Simply because they won't have any effect on anything except legitimate gun owners who want to own a bump stock or an extended magazine.
For the record, I don't own and never would buy a bump stock. I do own a couple of 30 round mags for my AR-15.
I am about as far from a Liberal as you can be BTW, in case that was directed my way. As I said before, I am a gun owner, and a hunter and was 100% against our ill-fated long gun registry in Canada. It had the same effect as what GFC is saying. The only impact was on the law abiding gun owners.
It's funny/ironic; many times I have asked anti gun people to suggest to me what type of legislation they would propose that (a) would make America safer and (b) not impose undue restrictions on law abiding gun owners.
As soon as they come up with something my next question is always: "And you think that criminals would abide by that law when, by their very nature, they don't abide by other laws? That's why they are criminals."
Stumps 'em every time. They just don't seem to get it.
I guess you did not read it. The two clauses cannot be conveniently separated.
"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."
Keep telling yourself that guns are like cars if it puts you in a happy place. Guns are made for killing. cars are not. Driving a car requires a license and proof of ability to operate. Gun owners won't even allow that.
I would not suggest taking them away, just make them illegal to display an existing one or buy a new one without very high scrutiny. Make it a crime if the weapon ever shows up anywhere. Functional banning, not actual.
You miss my point on the statement that every gun owner is one trigger pull away from a horrible accident or crime, my point is that it is often said that why should law abiding citizens be punished for the acts of criminals too which I was making the point that every one is law abiding until they are not. Allowing gun ownership makes it to easy to pull a trigger and injure or kill yourself or another person. That having been said, because guns are made to kill, i.e you don't play golf with a gun, you don't go boating on a gun, you don't go skiing on a gun, you kill things with a gun. Anyone who owns a gun buys it to kill or be able to kill. If that not why the gun was purchased then what a waste of money. minor exception to collectors who have rare guns that no longer can shoot.
You say guns have no purpose, they're made only to kill. You put it that way because it sounds the worst, it helps your argument you think. It just wouldn't sound the same if you said people buy guns to 'harvest' wild game.
I think guns are how I get a venison roast, a bear burger, rabbit stew, delicious meals of grouse, woodcock, pheasant, and duck. Sure the animal was 'killed' by my gun but in the end is there any difference between that and a steer that's been 'killed' so you can eat a steak, you just didn't do the 'killing'.
I suppose you'll say you live off kelp or something.
Guns are made to kill, and that's why we own them. Simple men with a simple plan doing simple things with our index finger
Put me in the camp of bump stocks and drum mags cause my eyesight isn't as good as it used to be.
Legit question. If you are hunting in the US, are you allowed to use an AR-15 with a 30 round clip? that would not be legal in Canada. Can an AR-15 be used for hunting, and if so, what restrictions are there on its use.
An AR15 is legal in WI and no magazine capacity restrictions. Same with shotguns, no capacity restrictions unless your hunting migratory game birds. You can't hunt any game bird, migratory game bird, or wild turkey with a rifle.
Same in Ma. but you must possess a class A high capacity license.