OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
Yeah cuz the people of South Korea, the Netherlands, and Scotland are terrorized by their wicked governments!!
Just because guns weren't used doesn't mean that guns weren't a factor.
Last edited:
How do you know they aren't? Because you agree with how those countries are run? There's a reason why serfs and slaves were never allowed to own weapons.
I didn't go and ask people who were breaking in if they had a weapon. I thought it would be better to be prepared. It doesn't really matter though. If you break in, I'm going to shot you, then check you for weapons.
Unless Martin Luther wrote with a gun, I doubt they were a factor.
It's the same with the stand your ground law. Why should I have to wait until you're beating me half to death in order to pull my weapon? You come at me, I shoot you. CC + the castle law + stand your ground = a whole lotta awesome!
Of course they were. Just the threat of a gun is a deterrent. Ever notice why mass shootings almost always happen in gun free zones?
I don’t think anyone is proposing that the government should come take your guns.
Two of my favorite people talking about censorship on social media sites. If you want to expand your knowledge,watch it. If you are easily triggered, go about your way.
To stop the spread of capitalism obviously, comrade.
Most of these shootings don't happen with an ak47 though. It's used as a buzz word. It's normally an ak type of weapon or something that looks like one.
I admittedly am completely ignorant on the value of a gun. I don’t hunt, I live in a big city, and even in that city I’ve never felt the need for that form of protection.
So I’ll ask a very basic question I’m genuinely curious about, what purpose do assault rifles serve citizens? Can you hunt with it? Is it a more threatening form of protection? I honestly don’t know.
It's a military grade weapon. And, it's not a mystery that military grade weapons are developed and made to kill people and protect the soldier as effectively as possible in combat. AR15s are not as effective as an AK47, in a combat environment. Assault weapons are made for pretty obvious reasons. And, hunting wild game isn't one of them.
ETA: Owning weapons as "protection" is more subjective. I can't imagine having to ever protect myself from a dozen or more people at once to where I need a weapon like an AK47. If someone tried breaking into my house, I'm content with having a shotgun.
Last edited:
@Terror Beard and @strummingram are mostly correct in their previous post. You could technically hunt with it, but it wouldn't be anywhere close to efficient for hunting. You would never see a real hunter use one. As far as it being more threatening, that would depend on how much someone knows about guns. An assault riffle like the AK47 isn't as accurate, so if the person isn't close or isn't an expert marksman, then there is a good chance he will miss. It certainly looks more threatening though.
It only took New Zealand 4 months to pass a buy-back law that compensated owners. Sounds like it was mandatory but only applied to certain types of weapons (although the article isn't entirely clear on that). Not arguing with anybody, just found it to be an interesting response to the worst mass shooting in the country's history.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...eapons-parts-in-buy-back-scheme-idUSKCN1UG096
Interesting article, but it's not something that is feasible here. Gun ownership is seen as a right that shouldn't ever be taken away in the US. Even if you could get enough people to demand that the second amendment be overturned by a new amendment, the cost would be too much. You would be looking at hundreds of millions, if not billions to do a buyback.
I realize that. The problem is the SC has said that individuals have a constitutional right to own a gun. You would have to have a constitutional amendment or get the SC to overturn previous precedent. There are almost 400 million guns in the US. Lets assume half of those would be deemed illegal by a new law. If the government did a buyback program and all 200 million were turned in at $5 each, that's $1 billion.
A buy back could help, but the country civilians own alot of high powered weaponry. As for the mass shooting, I dont see my response out of line
Then you also have all the legal fees involved when states kick against it as well as groups such as the NRA. Would most likely spawn more Waco style compounds as well.
I would love to have 69 Camaro and I love AR's. I am definately not compensating for anything.
Hobbiest mostly. Some people love the nostalgia of having a military style weapon in their hands. Others buy them because so much attention is drawn to them. Larger scale weapons like a 308 are generally for those who love to shoot distance.
Bump stocks and high capacity mags should not be legal imo. You can go to firing ranges to shoot automatic weapons. Civilians can also get permits for automatic weapons. I know someone who has one, and they told me that they lost their rights to being searched to own it. Super heavy regulations
It's like anything you enjoy. It's also not for everyone
BAsically just put a pistol grip on a rifle and it transforms into an “assault rifle”. I dont see any way you could
Outlaw them without some evidence that pistol grips enable killing people more efficiently. I agree that bump stocks and hi capacity magazines have no place though. As for age, it would be tough to rationalize banning gun sales to people old enough to serve in the military.
Outlaw them without some evidence that pistol grips enable killing people more efficiently. I agree that bump stocks and hi capacity magazines have no place though. As for age, it would be tough to rationalize banning gun sales to people old enough to serve in the military.
And would age really matter? Seems like most of these people are over the age of 21.
Grayhead said:
Ok so this sounds like a realistic start. But would @Terror Beard agree to this? Singling you out just cuz you seem the most pro-gun poaster.
I wouldn't worry to much about @Terror Beard unless he managed to land a seat on the SCOTUS or became POTUS.
Honestly, I dont think there is a solution to these shootings. Murder has been around since Cain and Able. If someone has it in their heart, it will happen.
Not sure I follow. An assault weapons ban was enacted via the standard Congressional legislative process in 1994.
You think focusing on lowering the potential body count is a worthwhile endeavor? Mass shootings are indiscriminate. Someone who plots to kill just one other person (revenge, whatever) is slightly different, and probably not what we're talking about. A person who plots to kill dozens of people isn't typically picking out which dozen they kill. They don't know them or anything about them. It's a matter of chance that they happen to be at the wrong place at the right time. I think this is more about trying to create a situation where these mass shootings are diminished in their casualty capacities.
The article you linked seemed to indicate assault weapons weren't the only weapons banned. I just assumed you meant more than just assault weapons. Since you bring up the weapons ban in 1994 though, there are two things to consider. First, the SC precedent was set after that ban and second, that ban has been proven to have little to no impact on homicide rates by multiple studies.
I'm not strongly opposed to an assault weapons ban as long as the definition of assault weapon is narrowly defined. But, it's just one more "solution" that is more window dressing.
Similar threads
