Moderator: Andrew
Fact Finder wrote:http://www.wtsp.com/video/news/local/girl-says-she-spoke-with-shooter/67-8009098
verslibre wrote:It's just too fucking easy to get guns in this country. That's the problem.
verslibre wrote:Make them a lot harder to get. Duh.
Boomchild wrote:verslibre wrote:Make them a lot harder to get. Duh.
That's the best you can do? How about trying to be more specific. What SPECIFIC laws or procedures would you suggest? I assume you are being serious here correct?
verslibre wrote:I knew exactly how you would react. I knew if I wrote "make it harder," you'd start to lose your wig.
At the very minimum, raise the legal age to buy firearms. If the guy selling the guy looks at the kid's driver's license, and he can see that he's not even old enough to buy a beer: NO SALE. Increase the waiting period to buy handguns, hunting rifles and assault rifles. No more 10-day, 15-day, 30-day bullshit. Maybe it's time to think in terms of months. Maybe you should prove you're worthy of handling and owning. Make it a privilege, not a right.
There's something specific for you, wise guy. How many guns do you own? I'm not telling you to surrender your arsenal, Sgt. Tackleberry.
Boomchild wrote:If you think someone asking you to state you position intelligently, then there may be something wrong with you.
Boomchild wrote:Firstly, in case you are not aware the 2nd amendment makes it right so "privilege" is not an option. Our founding fathers made it that way so the average citizen has the ability to defend oneself from a government that goes rouge on it's citizenry.
Boomchild wrote:If you increase the waiting period, how is that going to change anything? I mean if someone is buying said weapon for a malicious act that would only delay when they would be able to do it.
Boomchild wrote:I don't have too much of an issue concerning raising the age limit. But keep in mind we have seen people of ALL ages commit crimes with firearms. I doubt it would have the effect you think it would.
Boomchild wrote:Normally if someone was to ask me how many firearms I own i would tell them none of your fucking business. But in this case I will answer. NONE. I don't have a need for one at this moment. However, I believe in the right for anyone to own one if they so choose. I know a lot of people that do. They are average law abiding citizens that understand the nature of firearms. They handle them safely and obey all laws regarding them. Which is representative of the majority of people that do own them. However, you won't hear about those statistics.
verslibre wrote:Were you drunk when you wrote that? It makes no sense.
verslibre wrote:Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. Now think of the time in which the Second Amendment was written. What was on the minds of "our founding fathers"?
verslibre wrote:Gee, I guess you're right. Then time shouldn't be a factor at all. In fact, gun shops are businesses, not charities. One should just be able to walk in and buy firearms and walk out. Brown-bag 'em! Here's your receipt.
verslibre wrote:That's like saying people of all ages enjoy pornography. When's the last time you saw a septuagenarian go on a shooting spree?
verslibre wrote:Now you're just rambling. I'm not talking about a wholesale ban. I'm not talking about confiscation. I'm suggesting making the acquisition process a little more, say, tedious? It's too easy for douchebags to get guns. And the shop owner's going "Cool, a 19 y.o. bought an AR-15. And you know what they say, Merle? A sale isn't a sale until it's paid!" Then they flip the sign and everything's normal until a bunch of kids end up dead.
Boomchild wrote:What I am saying is evidently you have a problem with people asking you to put specifics to your position instead just a blurb. That you think it's strange for someone to ask you to do that.
Boomchild wrote:verslibre wrote:Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. Now think of the time in which the Second Amendment was written. What was on the minds of "our founding fathers"?
The amendment was designed to allow the citizens to protect themselves from a runaway government. A government that would turn on it's citizens. Please don't tell me that kind of situation is not possible in the present.
Boomchild wrote:verslibre wrote:Gee, I guess you're right. Then time shouldn't be a factor at all. In fact, gun shops are businesses, not charities. One should just be able to walk in and buy firearms and walk out. Brown-bag 'em! Here's your receipt.
I didn't say there shouldn't be background checks or waiting periods. Which is what you are inferring here. I was stating that I doubt extending it would effect on stopping people from committing violent acts with them.
Boomchild wrote:verslibre wrote:That's like saying people of all ages enjoy pornography. When's the last time you saw a septuagenarian go on a shooting spree?
No it does not. Your statement infers that only younger people are committing mass shootings. Which is obviously not true.
Boomchild wrote:verslibre wrote:Now you're just rambling. I'm not talking about a wholesale ban. I'm not talking about confiscation. I'm suggesting making the acquisition process a little more, say, tedious? It's too easy for douchebags to get guns. And the shop owner's going "Cool, a 19 y.o. bought an AR-15. And you know what they say, Merle? A sale isn't a sale until it's paid!" Then they flip the sign and everything's normal until a bunch of kids end up dead.
Judging by your flippant responses and weak suggestions on how to improve the process I can see that there is no point in discussing this with you.
steveo777 wrote:The NRA is the left's boogey man and has nothing to do with any recent shootings. None of the shooters are on record as being members, but keep grasping at someone / something to blame. How about blame the people who did the shooting, as the evil people, with no regard for the sanctity of human life that they are? The NRA making campaign contributions didn't just start when Trump ran for POTUS. I've been a member since 79 and all the other members I know have respect for human life, as well as respect for firearm safety. They advocate for responsible gun ownership and proper firearm safety training, not for unhinged psychopaths going out and taking innocent lives. I can't believe how fucking stupid people are sometimes....
Crying about the NRA, or even eliminating the organization won't do shit. Find an actual solution.
Ehwmatt wrote:And as a pretty right-wing conservative, I have to say: to sit here and ignore the gun problem is just something I can't countenance any longer. I'm getting really tired of the knee-jerk republican "it's not the gun, it's the person" mantra. It's also disingenuous. We have to at least try to do something reasonable about the essentially unfettered access to guns. There's no reason AR-15s and other highly efficient killing machines need to be available for purchase by the general public. I'm still waiting for one gun enthusiast to give me one good reason why they would possibly need an AR-15 or similar weapon. Let's at least get those things off the market (or at least make them solely available for use by hobbyists in licensed gun ranges). At least then there might be fewer events where they're used, and even civilians on the scene (teachers, kids, school security, etc.) will have a fighting chance to escape or even tackle/stop some little prick with a mere pistol or a shotgun.
Ehwmatt wrote:Unbelievable. Such a thought never even crossed my mind when I went to school.
Boomchild wrote:
verslibre wrote:For cryin' out loud, stop worrying about shit before 1968 or 1994 and think about TODAY.
verslibre wrote:I'm sure he means shooter (singular) and shooters (plural), even if he did not explicitly type it up on his hastily-composed letter. The emphasis is clearly on "do our duty."
But carry on with your semantically-driven gobbledygook, JB.
JBlake wrote:verslibre wrote:I'm sure he means shooter (singular) and shooters (plural), even if he did not explicitly type it up on his hastily-composed letter. The emphasis is clearly on "do our duty."
But carry on with your semantically-driven gobbledygook, JB.
Gobbledygook? Yeah, that would be what you call it when you put your bf cauck in your mouth. Taken it all the way to the balls, ey?
verslibre wrote:JBlake wrote:verslibre wrote:I'm sure he means shooter (singular) and shooters (plural), even if he did not explicitly type it up on his hastily-composed letter. The emphasis is clearly on "do our duty."
But carry on with your semantically-driven gobbledygook, JB.
Gobbledygook? Yeah, that would be what you call it when you put your bf cauck in your mouth. Taken it all the way to the balls, ey?
*applause*
You are a Complete. Fucking. Idiot. Thanks for proving that by resorting to homosexual imagery and THEN misspelling cock.
Thanks for the lolz!
Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests