You'll have to do your own research. I'm sure that anything I say here will be dismissed.
Trump pushing gun control
- Thread starter CU_TrialLawyer
- Start date
@TigerFlow @nytigerfan
So your argument is that an amateur malitia can't beat the most well trained army in the world (wonder where I have heard that one) and we should just submit our only hope for defense to our hopefully benevolent government overlords got it
So your argument is that an amateur malitia can't beat the most well trained army in the world (wonder where I have heard that one) and we should just submit our only hope for defense to our hopefully benevolent government overlords got it
Bullshit. I can't prove something never happened. You made a claim that something occurred and I think you're lying. You should back up your claim or back out of this conversation.
We can still fight with bats and stuff, no need for us to just roll over. Why are guns (and only certain ones) specifically required to prevent tyranny? There's a lot of stuff people are fine having banned. If the constitution was rewritten, why should we protect gun rights and not missile rights?
Yea because colonists just had cannons sitting in their barns...? You are trolling aren't you
I'm being a little silly about the bats thing, certainly. I don't follow you on the cannons. Is your argument that guns should be specifically protected and not missiles because guns are readily available and missiles are not? That seems....pretty arbitrary (if I'm reading you correctly).
Yes that and that militia without cannons (to begin with) we're able to win a war ....yes times have changed, but I and many others aren't ready to bend over and just accept whatever fate government decides for us. Therefore guns must remain legal for the citizenship to own.
And I'm making this argument not owning a handgun or a rifle. I do have a shotgun, but I don't even have shells currently. But I do like the idea that I could defend my freedoms (though they are limited even in today's society) if it were deemed necessary
Let's reframe the conversation a bit. What is the justification for prohibiting a weapon?
Just going to leave this here. Maybe 10 years away? 5? CIA using now for covert ops abroad?
And how will guns protect against government overreach with this type of technology?
I think that what many are getting at, but are unable to articulate due to a lack of knowledge, is the AR/modern sporting rifle's capability to be outfitted with high capacity magazines that can be quickly exchanged when empty. I have nothing against the firepower of the AR itself, although I have some reservations about what a person's actual motivations are to buy one over a standard .308 or .30-06 (outside of affordability concerns). I hinted in another thread that I suspect the AR has more of an appeal to those looking for some sort of validation of their manhood, but you could say the same thing of some motorcycles, Corvettes, etc. I admit it is not entirely fair to assume this, as well as being kind of irrelevant. Just something to think about.
But you have to at least tacitly admit that the speed with which an AR's magazines can be exchanged, combined with the fact that 30 round (or more) magazines are legal in the majority of the states, is ideal for someone seeking to inflict mass casualties. I'd like to hear what you think about keeping the modern sporting rifles as they are, while having a 10 or 15 round magazine limit, for all firearms. I don't think this would neuter the weapon's effectiveness in home invasion/defense scenarios, but it would make it much less lethal in an active shooter scenario. I think it would be wise to also mechanically add an extra step when equipping a magazine, such as a key or latch. It would do nothing to inhibit the rifle's utility for home defense or hunting, but it sure would make it more difficult to mow down a large number of people with only one weapon. A responsible gun owner would already have his or her weapons under lock and key at home, so the weapon could safely be kept loaded and ready for self defense.
LOL, AR's, motorcycles, and Corvettes...I guess I'm really trying hard to "validate my manhood" because I've owned all of those things. The truth is, I bought them because I like them, they're "big boy toys", and if anything, they're nothing but signs of my immaturity, not my manhood. They're fun!
As I've stated before, there really isn't anything that I can do with my AR that I can't do with some other gun, I just won't look as cool doing it. Magazine capacity is irrelevant to me. I can drop a mag and load a new one in less than 5 seconds, and it's not like I have a whole lot of training or practice either. So I lose less than 15 seconds if magazines are limited to 10 rounds. I just really don't see how that makes any difference at all.
Yeah, I kind of regretted typing that or making a personal assumption (the comment about motorcycles, etc.). Like I said, I don't think it's really fair, and I'm not saying that it particularly applies to you. I can see the appeal in all of those things.
What do you think about having some some sort of mechanical device on the magazine, a key or latch maybe, that would slow those 5 seconds or less to reload down a bit. Something that would require an assailant to actually have to flip the weapon over, look down, and manipulate the magazine a bit instead of just slapping a new one in. Do you think that would make a difference, or would that be too much of an impediment to law abiding AR owners such as yourself?
I took no offense, I thought it was funny because like I said, I have/had all of those.
I do think your idea would slow down reloads, but would it be enough to make a difference? I don't know.
I personally would not like it, why punish everyone for the actions of a few? Drunk drivers kill way more people per year than crazy people who shoot up schools, movie theaters, etc, but nobody proposes any ideas that somehow limit a cars ability in response.
Prescription pills kill more people than crazy assholes with guns, but nobody thinks that we should ban painkillers, or make them harder to get.
We have restrictions on what kinds of alcohol at what time of day you can drink. We have specified limits for how much you can drink and drive and have random stops to check for drunk people. You can't drink until 3 years after you can be drafted.
You have to have a prescription from a doctor to get painkillers.
I don't think it's accurate to characterize those particular issues the same as gun control.
Fine, you nailed me on the semantics for alcohol. Congratulations. It remains incorrect to say that we don't have restrictions surrounding drunk driving and prescription pill abuse when I laid those restrictions out for you. Why should we even have to get prescriptions for pills? Just because a few people abuse it?? That's absurd. Does that mindset carry over for you with voter ID laws? Or food stamps?
What's your problem with making something illegal when you can "go down to the screen corner and get whatever kind of [gun] I want, no [background check] required", anyways?
What's your problem with making something illegal when you can "go down to the screen corner and get whatever kind of [gun] I want, no [background check] required", anyways?
Pretty interesting stuff. Trump said that if the cops think you are dangerous they should just come and take your guns right now and do due process later. And folks on here are STILL supporting him. Imagine what those folks would be saying if those words came out of Hillary's or Obama's mouth. This board would be up in arms (pun intended). But the Dear Leader has his supporters on here so focused on their 401K's and brain washed that they'd probably line up to give up their guns and chant "Lock her up" while they do it.
As a moderate who has little patience with the extreme right and left, I find it mind blowing what has happened to the Republican party since Trump became president. All our intelligence agencies say the Russians are messing with the elections. Republicans: No big deal. Go Trump. MAGA! Now Trump says the government should just confiscate guns of folks and let the due process stuff happen after, and the right is STILL OK with it. I don't even know what to say. I honestly think that Trump could shoot a baby and there would be folks on here that would say the kid had it coming...
As a moderate who has little patience with the extreme right and left, I find it mind blowing what has happened to the Republican party since Trump became president. All our intelligence agencies say the Russians are messing with the elections. Republicans: No big deal. Go Trump. MAGA! Now Trump says the government should just confiscate guns of folks and let the due process stuff happen after, and the right is STILL OK with it. I don't even know what to say. I honestly think that Trump could shoot a baby and there would be folks on here that would say the kid had it coming...
It's like I keep saying - Trump's biggest asset in this last election is that he isn't Hillary Clinton.
My cat probably would have gotten at least 40% vs Hillary, and she's useless.
The cat I mean. Though I guess Hillary too.
I assume this is a troll but if not it is a great example of why the anti-gunners will never get any sort of effective ban. They don't know the weapons well enough to know what to actually call out in the ban.
It still illustrates my point - the anti-gunners will never get an effective "assault weapon" ban because they don't understand what they want to ban. The Clinton was was ridiculously stupid.
Same reason that there are so many tax loopholes - the money is in finding the loopholes, not closing them.
Similar threads
