America's Gun Violence #2

mace1229

But yet when I mention ban the features of assault rifles and AR15s that you don’t like, the response is just “no, ban AR15s!”
If it’s not a specifics gun you’re trying to ban, then why are you against banning the features you don’t like? I brought that up and you said no. Which, again, leads me to believe you just don’t like a specific gun.

HughFreakingDillon

mace1229 said:

But yet when I mention ban the features of assault rifles and AR15s that you don’t like, the response is just “no, ban AR15s!”
If it’s not a specifics gun you’re trying to ban, then why are you against banning the features you don’t like? I brought that up and you said no. Which, again, leads me to believe you just don’t like a specific gun.

how about this? just ban all guns/cartriges with the CAPABILITIES of mass casualties without having to reload?

cincybearcat

mace1229 said:

Silly me to think that everyone who keeps claiming they want to ban AR15s, many of whom know very little about guns, actually don’t mean ban AR15s.
And semantics are important. If you want to ban assault rifles, then you need to be able to clearly define what an assault rifle is. But bringing up these questions usually just gets criticism. But yet only 1 side ever gets blamed for lack of change.

Ok, ban it all....and then lets start using semantics to see what we bring back.  In?

cincybearcat

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Silly me to think that everyone who keeps claiming they want to ban AR15s, many of whom know very little about guns, actually don’t mean ban AR15s.
And semantics are important. If you want to ban assault rifles, then you need to be able to clearly define what an assault rifle is. But bringing up these questions usually just gets criticism. But yet only 1 side ever gets blamed for lack of change.

LOL....we aren't writing legislation on these boards. Silly to me to think that some of you can't make that connection.

Exactly...here I'm assuming that people paid to write legislation will utilize experts to help determine the proper wording....

Gern Blansten

mace1229 said:

But yet when I mention ban the features of assault rifles and AR15s that you don’t like, the response is just “no, ban AR15s!”
If it’s not a specifics gun you’re trying to ban, then why are you against banning the features you don’t like? I brought that up and you said no. Which, again, leads me to believe you just don’t like a specific gun.

Actually YOU said "we don't need to ban AR-15s" and I said "Yeah we need to ban AR-15s"

HughFreakingDillon

I get where mace is coming from. he's trying to come up with solutions and is getting mocked by people who, let's be honest here, don't really know the specifics of what we are talking about. many of us know the point we want to get to, but we don't the specific verbiage. 

Gern Blansten

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Parksy said:

tempo_n_groove said:

dankind said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

Merkin Baller said:

What kind of country and citizenry allows this to continue to happen? 

a country in which the supreme court didn’t even rule on an individuals right to own a gun until 2008

Yep, that’s true.if you actually read the second amendment it makes more sense as to why an individual right had never been recognised. I suspect a lot of pro gun people don’t actually read it though 

the old west had more gun control than today. Blanket bans inside cities was common 

an individual right to own a gun has been recognised for less time than a right to an abortion. Saying it’s set in stone or not open to revision isn’t true 

That depends on how you define gun control. The gun laws back then more often applied to open or concealed carrying in public. But purchasing and tracking firearms was much more free. Today you don’t have to register a gun made before 1898, and pretty much any other laws that apply like a wait period. I always assumed that’s because that’s when they started keeping records, but I could be wrong.

A lot of those restrictions today, like waiting period, registration, background checks are bypassed by private sales or gun shows 

so basically laws already in place that have pretty broad agreement have loopholes so large it renders the laws pointless 

if I’m a crazy person who would get flagged in a background check, illl just go to a gun show instead 

I didn’t even know that gunshow loophole was a thing because all the states I’ve lived in have the same requirements at a gunshow or private party saw as a gun store would.
I think the number of states with that loophole is getting smaller.

I could go to a flea market this weekend and come back with an arsenal without ever even showing anyone my ID.

I did that in Florida when I lived there and thought that was nuts and I'm a 2A guy...

Question... without trying to sound like a doosh... it's a legit question 

What will it take for you to no longer be a "2A Guy?"  And for my own understanding... what makes you a 2A guy? 

What do you mean by “2A guy”? Do you mean stricter laws, or just owning guns in general?

I see the same circle every time this comes up. Most gun owners are okay with, or even want stronger gun laws and common sense laws. But when we disagree with 1 thing people lose their mind. 

We don’t need to ban AR15s. One, from my understanding, they aren’t used in all these mass shootings which they are usually reported to have been used. That list that was posted earlier isn’t accurate. So it’s not like banning 1 gun is going to solve much. AR15 has become a common term to basically refer to assault rifles. It’s like saying Kleenex when you need a tissue.

Ive said before ban features. Ban high capacity magazines, or even detachable magazines. You can have an AR15, but with a fixed magazine of 5 rounds it poses a much smaller threat. But too often people want to ban a gun or features based off what it looks like and not the function.

Yeah we need to ban AR-15s....even the guy that invented them says so

HughFreakingDillon

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

But yet when I mention ban the features of assault rifles and AR15s that you don’t like, the response is just “no, ban AR15s!”
If it’s not a specifics gun you’re trying to ban, then why are you against banning the features you don’t like? I brought that up and you said no. Which, again, leads me to believe you just don’t like a specific gun.

Actually YOU said "we don't need to ban AR-15s" and I said "Yeah we need to ban AR-15s"

he said that because there are (apparently) many types of guns similar to AR15's, but if you only ban AR15's, it does basically nothing. hence his Kleenex analogy. AR15 is the trademark, not the type. 

Gern Blansten

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

But yet when I mention ban the features of assault rifles and AR15s that you don’t like, the response is just “no, ban AR15s!”
If it’s not a specifics gun you’re trying to ban, then why are you against banning the features you don’t like? I brought that up and you said no. Which, again, leads me to believe you just don’t like a specific gun.

Actually YOU said "we don't need to ban AR-15s" and I said "Yeah we need to ban AR-15s"

he said that because there are (apparently) many types of guns similar to AR15's, but if you only ban AR15's, it does basically nothing. hence his Kleenex analogy. AR15 is the trademark, not the type. 

Right...and again, we aren't writing legislation here. I don't want to type 1000 words for every kleenex that needs to be listed.  Don't we all get that point?

cutz

Gern Blansten said:

tempo_n_groove said:

dankind said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

Merkin Baller said:

What kind of country and citizenry allows this to continue to happen? 

a country in which the supreme court didn’t even rule on an individuals right to own a gun until 2008

Yep, that’s true.if you actually read the second amendment it makes more sense as to why an individual right had never been recognised. I suspect a lot of pro gun people don’t actually read it though 

the old west had more gun control than today. Blanket bans inside cities was common 

an individual right to own a gun has been recognised for less time than a right to an abortion. Saying it’s set in stone or not open to revision isn’t true 

That depends on how you define gun control. The gun laws back then more often applied to open or concealed carrying in public. But purchasing and tracking firearms was much more free. Today you don’t have to register a gun made before 1898, and pretty much any other laws that apply like a wait period. I always assumed that’s because that’s when they started keeping records, but I could be wrong.

A lot of those restrictions today, like waiting period, registration, background checks are bypassed by private sales or gun shows 

so basically laws already in place that have pretty broad agreement have loopholes so large it renders the laws pointless 

if I’m a crazy person who would get flagged in a background check, illl just go to a gun show instead 

I didn’t even know that gunshow loophole was a thing because all the states I’ve lived in have the same requirements at a gunshow or private party saw as a gun store would.
I think the number of states with that loophole is getting smaller.

I could go to a flea market this weekend and come back with an arsenal without ever even showing anyone my ID.

I did that in Florida when I lived there and thought that was nuts and I'm a 2A guy...

We are all "2A guys"....the problem is how we define the 2nd amendment. An amendment which was based on weapons that took a minute to load a single round.

Claiming the 2A keeps us safe from tyranny is just moronic.

Something like this?

https://youtu.be/CNIt8RvGP5M

PJ_Soul

Lerxst1992 said:

PJ_Soul said:

WRONG THREAD

If to my comment, please take a closer look at what I was replying to…thanks!

Haha. No, I had posted something in the wrong thread, so replaced the text with that.

HughFreakingDillon

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

But yet when I mention ban the features of assault rifles and AR15s that you don’t like, the response is just “no, ban AR15s!”
If it’s not a specifics gun you’re trying to ban, then why are you against banning the features you don’t like? I brought that up and you said no. Which, again, leads me to believe you just don’t like a specific gun.

Actually YOU said "we don't need to ban AR-15s" and I said "Yeah we need to ban AR-15s"

he said that because there are (apparently) many types of guns similar to AR15's, but if you only ban AR15's, it does basically nothing. hence his Kleenex analogy. AR15 is the trademark, not the type. 

Right...and again, we aren't writing legislation here. I don't want to type 1000 words for every kleenex that needs to be listed.  Don't we all get that point?

now that you say it, yes. but when you mention AR15's specifically, it appears as though you are talking about that specific rifle, not all ones like it. 

full disclosure: until a few minutes ago, I thought AR15 was the type, so I didn't see any problem with saying "ban AR15's". now I see that's incorrect. if you want people to take you seriously in a discussion, specifics matter. otherwise the person you are debating has every right to believe you don't know what you are talking about, and if you don't know what you are talking about, why should they entertain your ideas?

Halifax2TheMax

GREAT country we have here. Exceptional. Every country should be as great as 'Murica. What a shithole.

Texas school shooting

 

(The Washington Post)

More than 311,000 students have experienced gun violence at school since Columbine

The Washington Post spent months determining how many children have been exposed to gun violence during school hours since the Columbine High massacre in 1999.

By Washington Post Staff ●  Read more » 

Gunman was bullied as a child, grew increasingly violent, friends say 

By Robert Klemko, Silvia Foster-Frau and Shawn Boburg ●  Read more » 

From Sandy Hook to Buffalo and Uvalde: Ten years of failure on gun control

By Ashley Parker, Tyler Pager and Colby Itkowitz ●  Read more » 

 

 

 

 

Gern Blansten

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

But yet when I mention ban the features of assault rifles and AR15s that you don’t like, the response is just “no, ban AR15s!”
If it’s not a specifics gun you’re trying to ban, then why are you against banning the features you don’t like? I brought that up and you said no. Which, again, leads me to believe you just don’t like a specific gun.

Actually YOU said "we don't need to ban AR-15s" and I said "Yeah we need to ban AR-15s"

he said that because there are (apparently) many types of guns similar to AR15's, but if you only ban AR15's, it does basically nothing. hence his Kleenex analogy. AR15 is the trademark, not the type. 

Right...and again, we aren't writing legislation here. I don't want to type 1000 words for every kleenex that needs to be listed.  Don't we all get that point?

now that you say it, yes. but when you mention AR15's specifically, it appears as though you are talking about that specific rifle, not all ones like it. 

full disclosure: until a few minutes ago, I thought AR15 was the type, so I didn't see any problem with saying "ban AR15's". now I see that's incorrect. if you want people to take you seriously in a discussion, specifics matter. otherwise the person you are debating has every right to believe you don't know what you are talking about, and if you don't know what you are talking about, why should they entertain your ideas?

and again....mace stated that AR-15s didn't need to be banned and I disagreed. I wasn't stating that was the only thing that needed banned. If you look back a few pages you will see that I started the day saying that "assault weapons" should be banned.

Now we can argue that an AR-15 isn't an assault weapon right?

Gern Blansten

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Parksy said:

tempo_n_groove said:

dankind said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

Merkin Baller said:

What kind of country and citizenry allows this to continue to happen? 

a country in which the supreme court didn’t even rule on an individuals right to own a gun until 2008

Yep, that’s true.if you actually read the second amendment it makes more sense as to why an individual right had never been recognised. I suspect a lot of pro gun people don’t actually read it though 

the old west had more gun control than today. Blanket bans inside cities was common 

an individual right to own a gun has been recognised for less time than a right to an abortion. Saying it’s set in stone or not open to revision isn’t true 

That depends on how you define gun control. The gun laws back then more often applied to open or concealed carrying in public. But purchasing and tracking firearms was much more free. Today you don’t have to register a gun made before 1898, and pretty much any other laws that apply like a wait period. I always assumed that’s because that’s when they started keeping records, but I could be wrong.

A lot of those restrictions today, like waiting period, registration, background checks are bypassed by private sales or gun shows 

so basically laws already in place that have pretty broad agreement have loopholes so large it renders the laws pointless 

if I’m a crazy person who would get flagged in a background check, illl just go to a gun show instead 

I didn’t even know that gunshow loophole was a thing because all the states I’ve lived in have the same requirements at a gunshow or private party saw as a gun store would.
I think the number of states with that loophole is getting smaller.

I could go to a flea market this weekend and come back with an arsenal without ever even showing anyone my ID.

I did that in Florida when I lived there and thought that was nuts and I'm a 2A guy...

Question... without trying to sound like a doosh... it's a legit question 

What will it take for you to no longer be a "2A Guy?"  And for my own understanding... what makes you a 2A guy? 

What do you mean by “2A guy”? Do you mean stricter laws, or just owning guns in general?

I see the same circle every time this comes up. Most gun owners are okay with, or even want stronger gun laws and common sense laws. But when we disagree with 1 thing people lose their mind. 

We don’t need to ban AR15s. One, from my understanding, they aren’t used in all these mass shootings which they are usually reported to have been used. That list that was posted earlier isn’t accurate. So it’s not like banning 1 gun is going to solve much. AR15 has become a common term to basically refer to assault rifles. It’s like saying Kleenex when you need a tissue.

Ive said before ban features. Ban high capacity magazines, or even detachable magazines. You can have an AR15, but with a fixed magazine of 5 rounds it poses a much smaller threat. But too often people want to ban a gun or features based off what it looks like and not the function.

Yeah we need to ban AR-15s....even the guy that invented them says so

for the sake of the argument....I referred to the AR-15 specifically because mace did. Not that is being used against me. Give me a fucking break.

HughFreakingDillon

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

But yet when I mention ban the features of assault rifles and AR15s that you don’t like, the response is just “no, ban AR15s!”
If it’s not a specifics gun you’re trying to ban, then why are you against banning the features you don’t like? I brought that up and you said no. Which, again, leads me to believe you just don’t like a specific gun.

Actually YOU said "we don't need to ban AR-15s" and I said "Yeah we need to ban AR-15s"

he said that because there are (apparently) many types of guns similar to AR15's, but if you only ban AR15's, it does basically nothing. hence his Kleenex analogy. AR15 is the trademark, not the type. 

Right...and again, we aren't writing legislation here. I don't want to type 1000 words for every kleenex that needs to be listed.  Don't we all get that point?

now that you say it, yes. but when you mention AR15's specifically, it appears as though you are talking about that specific rifle, not all ones like it. 

full disclosure: until a few minutes ago, I thought AR15 was the type, so I didn't see any problem with saying "ban AR15's". now I see that's incorrect. if you want people to take you seriously in a discussion, specifics matter. otherwise the person you are debating has every right to believe you don't know what you are talking about, and if you don't know what you are talking about, why should they entertain your ideas?

and again....mace stated that AR-15s didn't need to be banned and I disagreed. I wasn't stating that was the only thing that needed banned. If you look back a few pages you will see that I started the day saying that "assault weapons" should be banned.

Now we can argue that an AR-15 isn't an assault weapon right?

well that's likely where we're headed, so yes. 

Hi!

Poncier

cutz said:

Gern Blansten said:

tempo_n_groove said:

dankind said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

Merkin Baller said:

What kind of country and citizenry allows this to continue to happen? 

a country in which the supreme court didn’t even rule on an individuals right to own a gun until 2008

Yep, that’s true.if you actually read the second amendment it makes more sense as to why an individual right had never been recognised. I suspect a lot of pro gun people don’t actually read it though 

the old west had more gun control than today. Blanket bans inside cities was common 

an individual right to own a gun has been recognised for less time than a right to an abortion. Saying it’s set in stone or not open to revision isn’t true 

That depends on how you define gun control. The gun laws back then more often applied to open or concealed carrying in public. But purchasing and tracking firearms was much more free. Today you don’t have to register a gun made before 1898, and pretty much any other laws that apply like a wait period. I always assumed that’s because that’s when they started keeping records, but I could be wrong.

A lot of those restrictions today, like waiting period, registration, background checks are bypassed by private sales or gun shows 

so basically laws already in place that have pretty broad agreement have loopholes so large it renders the laws pointless 

if I’m a crazy person who would get flagged in a background check, illl just go to a gun show instead 

I didn’t even know that gunshow loophole was a thing because all the states I’ve lived in have the same requirements at a gunshow or private party saw as a gun store would.
I think the number of states with that loophole is getting smaller.

I could go to a flea market this weekend and come back with an arsenal without ever even showing anyone my ID.

I did that in Florida when I lived there and thought that was nuts and I'm a 2A guy...

We are all "2A guys"....the problem is how we define the 2nd amendment. An amendment which was based on weapons that took a minute to load a single round.

Claiming the 2A keeps us safe from tyranny is just moronic.

Something like this?

https://youtu.be/CNIt8RvGP5M

"Ram the bullet fully home"
"Place a fresh cap on the nipple"
"Bring the rifle to full cock"

Close your eyes and you'd swear this is a blow by blow narration of Saturday night with George and Kellyanne Conway.

cincybearcat

HughFreakingDillon said:

I get where mace is coming from. he's trying to come up with solutions and is getting mocked by people who, let's be honest here, don't really know the specifics of what we are talking about. many of us know the point we want to get to, but we don't the specific verbiage. 

It’s just deflection. Used every time. Either start on about mental health or semantics of guns. 

“That’s not an assault weapon”….

We get it and you should get the point being made.

HughFreakingDillon

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I get where mace is coming from. he's trying to come up with solutions and is getting mocked by people who, let's be honest here, don't really know the specifics of what we are talking about. many of us know the point we want to get to, but we don't the specific verbiage. 

It’s just deflection. Used every time. Either start on about mental health or semantics of guns. 

“That’s not an assault weapon”….

We get it and you should get the point being made.

I agree it can be a deflection. but mace is a good guy who has legitimate questions about what people are proposing.