Gun Policy in America
- Thread starter sirdingydang
- Start date
![[thumb2]](https://ct.yimg.com/mr/uploads/891/1684387.png "Thumbs Up 2 [thumb2]")
wow. its almost as if we should think of another, better way to vet people who want access to deadly weapons
I agree tho the gun problem is real. More people need to carry & more places should allow carry to level the playing field vs the next Omar, Muhhammed, Tariq, or Abdul who wants to shoot us up cos the (((globalists))) like bombing them for fun & profit.
Yeah, that's all we need, more people that don't know how to handle guns walking around playing tough guy.
Yes, and that's why you hear about all these bombings going on, right? Instead, we have some crazy guy that should never have been able to own a gun, deciding to buy a gun and just a few days later he shoots 100 people in a very short time. LOL, and you call me dumb.
Sorry that I don't fit the "all guns must be banned" crowd, and instead I put some sensible thoughts about it together. I'm fine with people buying guns, it just cannot be this easy to get them.
The fact that anyone would agree with this guy on anything baffles me.Actually, no, you probably would not know what you're doing.
I mean, there's a reason why the civilian market and manufacturers -- by, of and for trained, professional shooters -- long switched to AR-15 like controls ... to make it easier for any veteran to become familiar with the safety, forward assist and other aspects. That as much as the economies-of-scale too.
What you're saying it just like saying the 9/11 terrorists didn't need to have any flying lessons. Yes, you do need time on a firearm to learn it.
It's not like a camera, not remotely. In fact, that's how most accidents happen. If you want to really piss of a lot of law enforcement and NRA members, more than even the media can, have a gun accident based on ignorance.
Furthermore ... the US media says you can mass kill people without much training. No, you can only mass kill people if you go unchallenged ... which is what usually happens in a gun free zone. Otherwise, you'd be dead fast ... possibly by taking your own life before someone else does. I.e., 2/3rds of mass shootings end when the shooter is challenged by someone, other than law enforcement, with a gun.
Lastly, a semi-automatic rifle is no faster than a semi-automatic pistol. Heck, they sell 30+ and even 40+ round extended magazines for many pistols, especially since most have standardized around the for 9mm and others Glock, like the NATO STANAG in 5.56 and others. You remember the Glock, right? You know why they call it an "Assault Weapon"? It's the hold-over from the same fools in the early '80s who said the Glock was a "plastic gun" that was "undetectable" in metal detectors. Now at the time, anyone who knew anything about physics knew you could not have a plastic gun any more than a plastic car. E.g., the engine is still going to be metal.
But today, with our physics-ignorant society doesn't understand. That's why 3D printers are back in the spotlight. Because the anti-Glock people have taken over the Brady Foundation. The only people even more ignorant than them are Bloomberg's Everytown.
You can just as fast as firearms. Yes, it's true. You can buy most of it already made for you too!
Oh really? We don't? That's the US media talking! Dude, you really need to read up! The statistics don't lie.
Especially the #1 school killing back in 1927. Seriously ... homemade bombs are a total problem in the US! Big time!
The main reason why shooters are picking "Black Rifles" in the US is because of the media! Even the LA Times (thank you, thank you) is starting to point out ... the problem is media, not method!
Otherwise they would not use a .22 round. Heck, gangsters figured out the .45 is the best with its huge cross section 90 years ago! That's why we banned automatic weapons with them 82 years ago! And who made them famous?
Then you really are poorly representing us ... very poorly. But in your defense ...
In my early 20s, I used to think like you did. But then as I got more into statics and dynamics, I started reading up on basic firearms design. Then I felt like an idiot.
Just like when the US media said kerosene melts steel, and that's why the towers fell. And then people with basic science said that was false, and the conspiracy theories started. So then I went and read the NIST report and, right there, basic statics kicked in. Heat weakens steel, so when you take out 2 of the 3 supports, and you have a load off-support ... well, that load quickly turns the beams into a fulcrum tied to the remaining support, and the result is pretty basic.
Read up! Use your knowledge!
And that's my point. If everyone that gets a gun has to go through a weapons training course, i'd be all for it. Instead, you let anyone walk into a store and 3 days later, they have a gun. It should not be that easy.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to make it that easy.
And it made sense in 1789... Different times. And I'm not saying that your right to have guns should be taking away, just that there should be an expectation that you know how to use them safely and that you are not a self- professed terrorist.
Last edited:
Freedom of speech made sense before the internet and social media... different times.
The FBI investigated the Orlando terrorist for three years. They found nothing that merited taking away his rights. I'm sure the agents that investigated him feel absolutely awful. There is obviously a problem with what the FBI is allowed to do. The FBI is limited by what the DOJ will allow them to do. The DOJ is controlled by the White House. If this guy was a white right wing Christian extremist would the outcome have been different?
That's a very fair point that you make. It is definitely a horrible mistake by the FBI. I honestly don't know what the outcome would've been if it was a right-wing Christian extremist. I'm sure it has happened before.
What I mean by different time is that when the 2nd amendment was enacted, the government and the people had access to the same guns, so it made sense that guns in the hands of the people created a balance between the two.
I would venture to say that now, the guns that the 2nd amendment gives you right to have would not be a match to the types of weapons that the government can have. To counter-balance that, you can do a lot more damage to a country through cyber-attacks than you can do with your gun. The point of the second amendment now has nothing to do with the initial intent of it.
Make it legal to buy, but at least make it so that you have to be qualified to get them.
After Jamestown you can still buy Kool-Aid, when will we wise up? The children!
Bergen: You and other former senior military officials are part of a group looking at the issue of the easy availability of assault weapons. What is intent of the group and why did you add your name and voice to it?
Petraeus: We are part of an advisory council for Mark Kelly's Veterans for Common Sense, a group that pursues common sense initiatives to reduce gun violence. Current areas of focus include trying to close loopholes that allow individuals who are domestic abusers or can't fly on an airplane but still are able to get a gun.
Bergen: So you would certainly endorse anybody that's on the no-fly list should not be allowed to buy a semi-automatic weapon?
Petraeus: Absolutely. There are obviously a number of different loopholes including the gun show loophole. I also believe that there's one purpose for an AK-47 and an AR-15, even if it is just on semi-automatic mode, and that is to kill another human being. And if you have a large capacity magazine you can kill even more.
Petraeus: We are part of an advisory council for Mark Kelly's Veterans for Common Sense, a group that pursues common sense initiatives to reduce gun violence. Current areas of focus include trying to close loopholes that allow individuals who are domestic abusers or can't fly on an airplane but still are able to get a gun.
Bergen: So you would certainly endorse anybody that's on the no-fly list should not be allowed to buy a semi-automatic weapon?
Petraeus: Absolutely. There are obviously a number of different loopholes including the gun show loophole. I also believe that there's one purpose for an AK-47 and an AR-15, even if it is just on semi-automatic mode, and that is to kill another human being. And if you have a large capacity magazine you can kill even more.
They left out some guns. My Ruger SR9 was made to kill as well. I sure as shit am not hunting with it.
So you think people should have to be qualified before they can use their cell phone to message people on twitter/forums/facebook/instagram/etc?
Hey guys, iPads and smart phones didn't exist when the Founders wrote the 1st Amendment, therefore it's insane to think that the 1st Amendment should apply to thoughts produced via an iPad or similar product.
Only a feathered pen and sheepskin paper will be allowed for 1st Amendment written protection.
If the Founders had known that in 2016, idiots could fire off anything they want every second via Twitter, under protection of the 1st Amendment, they never would have included a protection of free speech!
See how that works?
Only a feathered pen and sheepskin paper will be allowed for 1st Amendment written protection.
If the Founders had known that in 2016, idiots could fire off anything they want every second via Twitter, under protection of the 1st Amendment, they never would have included a protection of free speech!
See how that works?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/europe/germany-cinema-attack/index.html
Looks like Germany needs to #BANALLTHEGUNS!!!!
Oh wait, they have some of the strictest gun laws in Europe? They need more laws!
Looks like Germany needs to #BANALLTHEGUNS!!!!
Oh wait, they have some of the strictest gun laws in Europe? They need more laws!
It's amazing to me how the left wing in this country wants to totally remove the fact that he was Muslim and apparently a Jihadist from the equation, and instead turn the discussion to blaming the Christians who didn't want to bake gay cakes, the NRA, and apparently all Republicans everywhere.
We now know that a fellow Muslim reported Omar to the FBI in 2014 (after ALREADY being interviewed) since he admitted to watching Anwar Al-Alwaki videos and told him they were "powerful and moving". This was while they were there investigating another youth from the same mosque that went to Syria and killed people with a vest.
Yet the narrative now being pushed was that he's just a "scorned gay lover" or something.
This country is f*cked when an avowed ISIS fighter with a history of radicalization mass murders 50 people and half of the country goes into a rage about the NRA instead.
We now know that a fellow Muslim reported Omar to the FBI in 2014 (after ALREADY being interviewed) since he admitted to watching Anwar Al-Alwaki videos and told him they were "powerful and moving". This was while they were there investigating another youth from the same mosque that went to Syria and killed people with a vest.
Yet the narrative now being pushed was that he's just a "scorned gay lover" or something.
This country is f*cked when an avowed ISIS fighter with a history of radicalization mass murders 50 people and half of the country goes into a rage about the NRA instead.
Jesus Christ. YOu simply can't grasp that had the FBI and the community not failed over and over and over, his 2nd Amendment rights would have been denied due to the system WORKING at that point, can you?
The idiots camping in the Capitol want the No Fly List used to deny sales- well, he wasn't even on it!
What would you have liked the FBI to do to him, that would have prevented this?
He was an American citizen. Are you suggesting we start profiling citizens and take away their rights based on religion?
The FBI either screwed up or have orders from the DOJ/White House to turn a blind eye to extremist Muslims because it doesn't fit their narrative.
If you can honestly tell me that you'd be comfortable walking into any place and knowing that everyone around you is carrying a gun, I'll just drop it.
You go to Publix and the cashier and bagger have a gun. You go to a football game and the entire stadium is carrying guns. You go to a bar and everyone is carrying guns. You go to work and the guy getting let go (by you) has a gun. You go to school and your classmates have guns. You go to dinner and your waiter has guns. Why? Just because. Do they know how to handle a gun? No, but who cares?
It's their right, guns for everyone. Maybe the government should just hand them out since it's their right?
Although I know that there's nothing stopping that scenario from happening, I'd rather know that people owning a gun have gone through some safety training and they are not going to blow my eye out by accident. Or they are sane enough not to pull a gun out when they get mad at you since they can't deal with it intelligently.
100000% comfortable. Two of my best friends are always carrying, I always feel more comfortable being out when they are around.
If people don't feel safer with guns all around them why do liberal politicians surround themselves with them? I 100% feel safer knowing most of the people I work with carry.
BTW you have to pass a gun safety class before you can apply for a conceal carry. People who have a carry license don't commit mass shootings.
I'm pretty sure that you can make a better argument than that. I don't know you but I've read some pretty good posts from you, and this is not it.If people don't feel safer with guns all around them why do liberal politicians surround themselves with them? I 100% feel safer knowing most of the people I work with carry.
That is the secret service. They carry guns in case some nutjob decides to do something stupid. Unfortunately, history tells us what happens when stupid people target our leaders.
Again, this is a really bad pro-gun argument. You can do better.
So politicians should be allowed to protect themselves from nutjobs but not normal private citizens?
Reading comprehension much? I'd assume that your 2 bff's know what they are doing with guns. Replace them with those 2 dumb buddies that we all have and tell me if you'd be comfortable hanging out with them and guns.
Are you saying that you don't exercise your right and carry one?
If private citizens have gone through proper training, have proven to be sane and they can actually protect themselves, then yes they should be able to carry.
I'm pretty sure that neither Hillary nor W are carrying. Its the secret service's job to protect them.
You have to pass a gun safety class and background check to conceal carry a gun. No one can carry a rifle concealed without being extremely obvious. They're already breaking the law by having them in public. More laws will not stop them.
I don't have a concealed carry permit, so no I don't carry. I still have one in my house though, but I follow the law and don't carry because I haven't taken the training courses
Owning one does not equal carrying one to the grocery store. And you complained about my reading comprehension??
Yeah because my argument is that it should not be so easy to own one.
Once you own one, I can't stop you from carrying it and I'd rather stop irresponsible gun owners like you at the source. It sorta becomes an honor system unless you get caught. If you are not qualified to carry one around, I don't want you to own one either. If you own a gun and you haven't taken the time to take a safety class then you have bigger problems than just reading comprehension.
Because I've never taken a class and gone through the government process to get a carry I'm irresponsible? I passed all background checks, taught my wife to use it when she came in to my family and lock it up with kids in the house. So glad you think the government giving the ok for someone is how they become responsible.
Similar threads
