Online Now 3390

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 1946
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3312
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

247Rumors

College football scuttlebutt and scoop- powered by Football Rumor Mill

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

A Little Gun History

  • getmyjive11 said...

    Well, alcohol content is regulated. Drugs are obviously regulated. Cigs are regulated. Junk food and soft drinks are becoming more regulated. Cars have speed limiters and are regulated.

    TVs? huh?

    Do you NEED flat screen TVs? No. We don't need a lot of things, but we have them.

    PS. I'm glad I finally got one of you to say what's on all of your minds: That you know what we need and don't need. Arrogance.

    Marshall Nole

  • LScootU said...

    Compromise is great but people want all or nothing. Even our politicians are like this. Dems want this way and Repubs want this way. This will be the end of our country

    On that I will whole heartedly agree and it is quite sad. Compromise is def a lost concept in this day and age.

    signature image signature image

    Why So Serious?

    ThaJoker

  • getmyjive11 said...

    Who or what are you harming by owning a bomb? Who or what are you harming by owning counterfeit money? Who or what are you hurting by having an old police badge in your possession?

    That is a stupid argument.

    I don't own any of those things you listed.

    Please list what else I need and don't need. You obviously know what's best for me.

    Marshall Nole

  • LScootU said...

    Compromise is great but people want all or nothing. Even our politicians are like this. Dems want this way and Repubs want this way. This will be the end of our country

    Another damn DP.

    This post was edited by ThaJoker on 12/19/2012 at 12:29 PM

    signature image signature image

    Why So Serious?

    ThaJoker

  • Marshall Nole said...

    Do you NEED flat screen TVs? No. We don't need a lot of things, but we have them.

    PS. I'm glad I finally got one of you to say what's on all of your minds: That you know what we need and don't need. Arrogance.

    I'm sorry, I didn't know that death by flat screen TV bludgeoning was a problem. no

    Come on bro, at least try to be realistic.

    getmyjive11

  • Johns381 said...

    That is what is wrong with the country, nobody understands right and wrong, it's all about what I want.

    This sums it up.

    An individuals personal hobby is more important than the general welfare of the public.

    rms02d ●

  • rms02d said...

    This sums it up.

    An individuals personal hobby is more important than the general welfare of the public.

    It's not about the "general welfare" of the public it's about freedom and knowing right from wrong.

    Johns381

  • rms02d said...

    This sums it up.

    An individuals personal hobby is more important than the general welfare of the public.

    Yep. Sounds about right.

    signature image signature image

    Clarkw267 ●

  • rms02d said...

    This sums it up.

    An individuals personal hobby is more important than the general welfare of the public.

    Anit-gun people have the opinion that because they don't want guns nobody else should have them, thus making the world safer. Let's take away everybody else's freedom because I don't like guns.

    I don't like cigerettes but I don't care if somebody wants to smoke one in their own house, that's their business. When they come into a resturant I don't blame them smoking inside said resturant on the cigerette, I blame it on the person smoking.

    Johns381

  • Johns381 said...

    Anit-gun people have the opinion that because they don't want guns nobody else should have them, thus making the world safer. Let's take away everybody else's freedom because I don't like guns.

    I don't like cigerettes but I don't care if somebody wants to smoke one in their own house, that's their business. When they come into a resturant I don't blame them smoking inside said resturant on the cigerette, I blame it on the person smoking.

    Who is saying to ban all guns?

    They need to be regulated... like cigarettes, like alcohol. Do you understand what words 'regulate' and 'ban' mean?

    signature image signature image

    Clarkw267 ●

  • Johns381 said...

    Anit-gun people have the opinion that because they don't want guns nobody else should have them, thus making the world safer. Let's take away everybody else's freedom because I don't like guns.

    I don't like cigerettes but I don't care if somebody wants to smoke one in their own house, that's their business. When they come into a resturant I don't blame them smoking inside said resturant on the cigerette, I blame it on the person smoking.

    My biggest issue with this whole thing are people like getmyjive who will actually sit here and tell you what he thinks you need. It is arrogance beyond belief.

    It really gets my blood boiling and I shouldn't let it happen over a message board.

    Marshall Nole

  • Marshall Nole said...

    My biggest issue with this whole thing are people like getmyjive who will actually sit here and tell you what he thinks you need. It is arrogance beyond belief.

    It really gets my blood boiling and I shouldn't let it happen over a message board.

    The thing is... he asked for a reason that you would need to own one, and you came up with essentially "because I want to".

    Well guess what, if regulating firearms leads to even one less of these events, that certainly trumps "because I want to". Sorry.

    signature image signature image

    Clarkw267 ●

  • Marshall Nole said...

    My biggest issue with this whole thing are people like getmyjive who will actually sit here and tell you what he thinks you need. It is arrogance beyond belief.

    It really gets my blood boiling and I shouldn't let it happen over a message board.

    You shouldn't because if you were reasonable, you would know that certain types of weapons serve no purpose in the general public. When you get around to telling me why you NEED a handgun, semi-auto or an extended clip, then we can talk. Otherwise, I just see you pouting because you can't play with your toy.

    getmyjive11

  • getmyjive11 said...

    You shouldn't because if you were reasonable, you would know that certain types of weapons serve no purpose in the general public. When you get around to telling me why you NEED a handgun, semi-auto or an extended clip, then we can talk. Otherwise, I just see you pouting because you can't play with your toy.

    I need a semi-automatic handgun for self defense. I carry one around with me everywhere. I prefer not to use revolvers because I can reload my Walther and H&K handguns faster, and they hold more bullets.

    Perfect reason right there.

    And don't tell me if these were banned that I wouldn't need them... the criminals would still have them.

    Marshall Nole

  • Marshall Nole said...

    Answer this:

    Tell me what or who I personally am hurting by owning a FN-FAL .308 rifle?

    If you can't name anyone or anything, then why shouldn't I have one?

    You personally might not be hurting someone, but someone else might hurt someone using that type of gun. It's like saying, well I know my limit when I drink and even though I may be technically above the .08 BAC level, I can still get home safely without any problems. That doesn't mean it's the same way for everyone else. It's been determined that the risk of getting into a car accident is great when your BAC is above .08. There's also a greater risk of harm in guns that are automatic and semi-automatic and when the clips are larger.

    The point is, a gun's purpose today is either for safety or recreational use (including hunting). Those options can be obtained through safer guns than the guns being banned in the automatic weapons bill.

    CliftonHokie09

  • CliftonHokie09 said...

    You personally might not be hurting someone, but someone else might hurt someone using that type of gun. It's like saying, well I know my limit when I drink and even though I may be technically above the .08 BAC level, I can still get home safely without any problems. That doesn't mean it's the same way for everyone else. It's been determined that the risk of getting into a car accident is great when your BAC is above .08. There's also a greater risk of harm in guns that are automatic and semi-automatic and when the clips are larger.

    The point is, a gun's purpose today is either for safety or recreational use (including hunting). Those options can be obtained through safer guns than the guns being banned in the automatic weapons bill.

    People still drive drunk all the time despite the law. People still do hard drugs all the time despite the law. You can ban the purchase of/regulate/whatever these things all you want, and the only people it effects are law abiding citizens.

    I will support legislation that makes it h arder to buy a guy through psych evals, more stringent background checks, waiting periods, etc, but the FIRST step should not be to make the purchase of certain types of guns illegal.

    I am also for strict punishment for parents who do not secure their guns properly like the mother of Adam Lanza, but she paid the ultimate price for her stupidity.

    This post was edited by Marshall Nole on 12/19/2012 at 1:03 PM

    Marshall Nole

  • Marshall Nole said...

    People still drive drunk all the time despite the law. People still do hard drugs all the time despite the law. You can ban the purchase of/regulate/whatever these things all you want, and the only people it effects are law abiding citizens.

    I will support legislation that makes it h arder to buy a guy through psych evals, more stringent background checks, waiting periods, etc, but the FIRST step should not be to make the purchase of certain types of guns illegal.

    I am also for strict punishment for parents who do not secure their guns properly like the mother of Adam Lanza, but she paid the ultimate price for her stupidity.

    I've said before without response..

    Do you ever think there has been an instance where someone that was going to drive drunk, or do drugs decided not to because of the laws?

    If so, if regulating firearms prevents or limits the casualties of 1 event like the one in Connecticut wouldn't that be worth it?

    signature image signature image

    Clarkw267 ●

  • Marshall Nole said...

    People still drive drunk all the time despite the law. People still do hard drugs all the time despite the law. You can ban the purchase of/regulate/whatever these things all you want, and the only people it effects are law abiding citizens.

    I will support legislation that makes it h arder to buy a guy through psych evals, more stringent background checks, waiting periods, etc, but the FIRST step should not be to make the purchase of certain types of guns illegal.

    I am also for strict punishment for parents who do not secure their guns properly like the mother of Adam Lanza, but she paid the ultimate price for her stupidity.

    So we should do away with drunk driving penalties? If that's the case, then why do we have laws in the first place? Just because criminals are willing to take risk does not mean the rest of society will. In almost every case of these mass shootings, the guns were obtained legally. The boys/men committing the shootings weren't criminals either prior to their shooting. So how do we know they would break the law to get a gun?

    CliftonHokie09

  • Clarkw267 said...

    I've said before without response..

    Do you ever think there has been an instance where someone that was going to drive drunk, or do drugs decided not to because of the laws?

    If so, if regulating firearms prevents or limits the casualties of 1 event like the one in Connecticut wouldn't that be worth it?

    What regulations would have prevented what happened in CT? The lady owned the guns legally. Are you saying they should be confiscated?

    Did the original assault weapons ban prevent Columbine? Why not?

    This post was edited by Marshall Nole on 12/19/2012 at 1:16 PM

    Marshall Nole

  • CliftonHokie09 said...

    So we should do away with drunk driving penalties? If that's the case, then why do we have laws in the first place? Just because criminals are willing to take risk does not mean the rest of society will. In almost every case of these mass shootings, the guns were obtained legally. The boys/men committing the shootings weren't criminals either prior to their shooting. So how do we know they would break the law to get a gun?

    You are telling me it is legal for a 20 year old to take guns from his parents and drive around with them?

    If these guns were secured properly we aren't having this discussion.

    There needs to be harsher penalties for people not securing their weapons properly.

    Marshall Nole

  • Marshall Nole said...

    You are telling me it is legal for a 20 year old to take guns from his parents and drive around with them?

    If these guns were secured properly we aren't having this discussion.

    There needs to be harsher penalties for people not securing their weapons properly.

    How do you implement a policy like that? Do you want the federal government making checks in your house regularly that your guns are stored properly?

    CliftonHokie09

  • CliftonHokie09 said...

    How do you implement a policy like that? Do you want the federal government making checks in your house regularly that your guns are stored properly?

    Not sure how you'd implement it.

    Are you telling me assault weapon bans prevent school massacres?

    This is my last post. We will agree to disagree.

    I doubt any assault weapons ban passes the House, and even if it did, I'd still get mine.

    Marshall Nole

  • Can one you anti-gun people please tell me why you can tell others what we need or don't need

    LScootU

  • LScootU said...

    Can one you anti-gun people please tell me why you can tell others what we need or don't need

    Okay this really is my last post... I will answer that for you..

    Because they think they are smarter than everyone else. They honestly believe they know what is best for everyone.

    Marshall Nole

  • Marshall Nole said...

    Okay this really is my last post... I will answer that for you..

    Because they think they are smarter than everyone else. They honestly believe they know what is best for everyone.

    It's pretty simple.. If you can't give one practical use for something,then you don't need it, you want it.

    And if said thing helps in causing harm to others,Then understandably there are people who question the reason that such things are obtainable.

    For example, we don't need cars that go 150 MPH. If regulating that auto makers can't produce a car that goes over 90 MPH came into effect, you wouldn't find me on here bitching about it, because it's not a necessity.

    This post was edited by Clarkw267 on 12/19/2012 at 1:56 PM

    signature image signature image

    Clarkw267 ●

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports