Online Now 3071

The Blue Board

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

On this Board 2161
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3485
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

Ban Everything. (Obviously not, but good read)

  • amrollZ71 said...

    The bottom line is this, no matter what law is passed I know I personally would not give up ANY weapon of mine. When you are talking about tearing down rights it is life and death to some of us. To give the devil and inch is to give him a mile.

    This. Give the govenment an "inch" in gun control and they will take a mile.

    ROLL TIDE!

    rollingtide2004

  • amrollZ71 said...

    So I have to justify my right with a purpose? LOL. Give in man, you don't know enough of what you are talking about.

    Mark it down in tBB history, this is the first time the liberals(And friends) have lost a debate and run out of bull crap to throw! I honestly did not believe I would see the day. +1's for all on this special occasion.

    Edit: I don't even want to insult liberals with these people, instead of liberals I would refer to those ITT as anti-constitutionalists.

    You are a sad, sad individual.

    It's so important to you to own a certain type of firearm, that you are unwilling to even think for a minute that these types of gun limitations may actually help reduce the number and scale of these kinds of attacks.

    Drinking and driving is illegal because it increases the dangers of alcohol, but shouldn't it be my right? Obviously people still do it all the time, but you don't think that there has ever been an instance where someone was deterred from doing it by the law?

    Nobody is saying to ban all guns, they are saying limit what the public has access to, so that it decreases the possibility of these things happening. Even if it is only 5% , 2% , or 1% effective it's still worth it. And is far more important than anybody's "right" to have a toy for target practice.

    This post was edited by Clarkw267 on 12/19/2012 at 10:47 AM

    signature image signature image

    Clarkw267 ●

  • rollingtide2004 said...

    Who the hell are you to tell someone what they need? If I want to own a semi-auto AR rifle, it should be protected by the 2nd amendment.

    Likewise, if I want to own a nuke, should that be protected? After all, 'who are you to tell someone what they need'?

    ramssuperbowl99

  • ramssuperbowl99 said...

    Likewise, if I want to own a nuke, should that be protected? After all, 'who are you to tell someone what they need'?

    Owning a nuke is not protected by the 2nd ammendment dumbass.

    ROLL TIDE!

    rollingtide2004

  • Clarkw267 said...

    You are a sad, sad individual.

    It's so important to you to own a certain type of firearm, that you are unwilling to even think for a minute that these types of gun limitations may actually help reduce the number and scale of these kinds of attacks.

    Drinking and driving is illegal because it increases the dangers of alcohol, but shouldn't it be my right? Obviously people still do it all the time, but you don't think that there has ever been an instance where someone was deterred from doing it by the law?

    Nobody is saying to ban all guns, they are saying limit what the public has access to, so that it decreases the possibility of these things happening. Even if it is only 5% , 2% , or 1% effective it's still worth it. And is far more important than anybody's "right" to have a toy for target practice.

    Drinking and driving infringes on others' rights, an 'assault' rifle in my possession does not. Try again.

    Once again, do you not think a shotgun or ANY gun could've killed unarmed children? Guns aren't the problem.

    signature image signature image signature image

    azvalleybuckeye

  • ramssuperbowl99 said...

    Likewise, if I want to own a nuke, should that be protected? After all, 'who are you to tell someone what they need'?

    Grasping for straws.

    signature image signature image signature image

    azvalleybuckeye

  • rollingtide2004 said...

    Owning a nuke is not protected by the 2nd ammendment dumbass.

    The second amendment says I have the 'right to bear arms'. What exactly constitutes a firearm is also vague. But, if you want me to be specific about it, a grenade launcher. Do I have the right to one of them?

    ramssuperbowl99

  • amrollZ71 said...

    So I have to justify my right with a purpose? LOL. Give in man, you don't know enough of what you are talking about.

    Mark it down in tBB history, this is the first time the liberals(And friends) have lost a debate and run out of bull crap to throw! I honestly did not believe I would see the day. +1's for all on this special occasion.

    Edit: I don't even want to insult liberals with these people, instead of liberals I would refer to those ITT as anti-constitutionalists.

    So you can't answer the question, I thought you were some gun expert?

    signature image

    'Just to make it clear, I'm not transferring, I like it here too damn much to leave.' Jordan Kerner

    ejb5212

  • azvalleybuckeye said...

    Drinking and driving infringes on others' rights, an 'assault' rifle in my possession does not. Try again.

    Once again, do you not think a shotgun or ANY gun could've killed unarmed children? Guns aren't the problem.

    How so? Just because one person can't handle their liquor and t-bones a car, doesn't mean that every one will.

    signature image signature image

    Clarkw267 ●

  • rollingtide2004 said...

    This. Give the govenment an "inch" in gun control and they will take a mile.

    Are fully automatic weapons legal?

    signature image

    'Just to make it clear, I'm not transferring, I like it here too damn much to leave.' Jordan Kerner

    ejb5212

  • ramssuperbowl99 said...

    The second amendment says I have the 'right to bear arms'. What exactly constitutes a firearm is also vague. But, if you want me to be specific about it, a grenade launcher. Do I have the right to one of them?

    Still grasping for straws.

    These assault rifles are speak of are nothing more than a high powered .22
    yet you compare them to grenade launchers and nukes.. clever.

    signature image signature image signature image

    azvalleybuckeye

  • azvalleybuckeye said...

    Still grasping for straws.

    These assault rifles are speak of are nothing more than a high powered .22 yet you compare them to grenade launchers and nukes.. clever.

    what's the difference between blowing a .07 and a .09 ? Why even bother it's all the same right?

    signature image signature image

    Clarkw267 ●

  • azvalleybuckeye said...

    Still grasping for straws.

    These assault rifles are speak of are nothing more than a high powered .22 yet you compare them to grenade launchers and nukes.. clever.

    No I'm not. I just want to know if you think there should be some limits on the firearms people can own.

    e.g. Whether you think it's okay for someone with no documented mental health history to walk into a store and walk out with body armor, a bunch of guns, and a grenade launcher.

    EDIT: Or whether a documented felon should be able to buy guns, or whether guns should come with age restrictions, etc.

    This post was edited by ramssuperbowl99 on 12/19/2012 at 11:01 AM

    ramssuperbowl99

  • ejb5212 said...

    Are fully automatic weapons legal?

    Fully auto weapons made prior to 1986 are completely legal.

    Also people in possession of a class 3 license are legally allowed to own suppressed/auto weapons.

    signature image signature image signature image

    azvalleybuckeye

  • ramssuperbowl99 said...

    No I'm not. I just want to know if you think there should be some limits on the firearms people can own.

    e.g. Whether you think it's okay for someone with no documented mental health history to walk into a store and walk out with body armor, a bunch of guns, and a grenade launcher.

    EDIT: Or whether a documented felon should be able to buy guns, or whether guns should come with age restrictions, etc.

    Felons can't buy firearms and there are age restrictions.. what are you getting at?

    signature image signature image signature image

    azvalleybuckeye

  • azvalleybuckeye said...

    Felons can't buy firearms and there are age restrictions.. what are you getting at?

    I'm not asking if it's legal currently, I'm literally asking your opinion.

    Should there be any restrictions on firearms?

    ramssuperbowl99

  • ramssuperbowl99 said...

    I'm not asking if it's legal currently, I'm literally asking your opinion.

    Should there be any restrictions on firearms?

    Once again you're being irrational.

    I am content with the laws in place.

    If the mother did not die, in this last instance, she should have been 100% at fault for this crime. She knowingly had a mentally unstable individual living in her house with firearms which were clearly not stored properly.

    The issue is not the types of firearms... or mags. The issue is the lack of accountability by the majority of this country.

    Passing more firearm laws isn't going to prevent crimes or mass murders... or even lessen them.

    I can legally purchase everything I need to make pipe bombs at Walmart, so can crazy people. If they want to kill people they are going to, at least allow the innocent bystanders the opportunity to defend themselves.

    signature image signature image signature image

    azvalleybuckeye

  • azvalleybuckeye said...

    Once again you're being irrational.

    I am content with the laws in place.

    I have yet to make any statement whatsoever on my position. All I've done is ask you your opinion. How in the world is that being irrational?

    You're content with the laws in place (namely, the restrictions on the 2nd amendment which place the safety of the general public over the rights of someone to bear arms). That's fine. But there isn't really a 2nd amendment argument for putting further restrictions on magazine limits - we've already got a long-established court precedent of putting safety over the 2nd amendment provided firearm access isn't completely eliminated.

    My actual opinion is that I don't lean strongly one way or the other. If I would place additional restrictions on guns, I would want mental health screenings on people who elect to purchase a firearm and begin to regulate magazine sizes/reload times so that people would be more able to stop mass murders like the one in Conneticuit.

    All in all, though, I'd much prefer to see additional access to mental health care. That's the real issue. Guns are a secondary problem.

    EDIT: While the additional reload time/limited mags wouldn't stop mass murders entirely, it would give the general public more time and chances to stop the guy and hopefully limit the casualties.

    This post was edited by ramssuperbowl99 on 12/19/2012 at 11:27 AM

    ramssuperbowl99

  • azvalleybuckeye said...

    Passing more firearm laws isn't going to prevent crimes or mass murders... or even lessen them.

    Why do you say this like it's fact, when other countries have done it with success?

    signature image signature image

    Clarkw267 ●

  • Clarkw267 said...

    Why do you say this like it's fact, when other countries have done it with success?

    Other countries are not this country. Our culture is one of a kind.

    signature image signature image signature image

    azvalleybuckeye

  • ramssuperbowl99 said...

    I have yet to make any statement whatsoever on my position. All I've done is ask you your opinion. How in the world is that being irrational?

    You're content with the laws in place (namely, the restrictions on the 2nd amendment which place the safety of the general public over the rights of someone to bear arms). That's fine. But there isn't really a 2nd amendment argument for putting further restrictions on magazine limits - we've already got a long-established court precedent of putting safety over the 2nd amendment provided firearm access isn't completely eliminated.

    My actual opinion is that I don't lean strongly one way or the other. If I would place additional restrictions on guns, I would want mental health screenings on people who elect to purchase a firearm and begin to regulate magazine sizes/reload times so that people would be more able to stop mass murders like the one in Conneticuit.

    All in all, though, I'd much prefer to see additional access to mental health care. That's the real issue. Guns are a secondary problem.

    EDIT: While the additional reload time/limited mags wouldn't stop mass murders entirely, it would give the general public more time and chances to stop the guy and hopefully limit the casualties.

    Mental health assessments is a great idea if:
    It were feasible financially.
    All people bought guns from dealers.

    I can't remember the last time I bought a firearm from a dealer, I usually purchase or trade with people on sites like backpage.

    Edit: I would love to see all this time, energy, and money used to help treat or contain these individuals who are clearly not suitable for society.

    As for reload time, doesn't matter so long as there are gun free zones. You think one of those first graders was going to stab the guy with his pencil? Lol.

    This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by azvalleybuckeye on 12/19/2012 at 11:44 AM

    signature image signature image signature image

    azvalleybuckeye

  • azvalleybuckeye said...

    Other countries are not this country. Our culture is one of a kind.

    About 75% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US border and their economy is extremely dependent on us. They are as close as you are going to find to our culture.

    Yet it works for them...

    signature image signature image

    Clarkw267 ●

  • Wait, so have we gone all the way to calling for a ban now? That has never been my stance in these threads. I've just been calling for stricter regulations, requirements, and licensing/testing when purchasing, owning, and operating the "higher class" (for lack of a better) assault firearms in the same vein one has to in order to own/operate a track-bound race car. Obviously some people still own them, but the majority of owners take the hobby very, very seriously as do they the licensing, regulations, et al. I don't think banning ever truly works, look at the prohibition, though to be fair some guy can't brew an AR-15 in his backyard. That said, I just want people to prove they are competent enough to own and operate certain things. I think that's fair.

    signature image signature image signature image

    sf2k4 ●

  • Here is the problem that I have. Whenever I ask the question, "what practical use do we have for hand guns, semi-autos and extended mags that cannot be done with a shotgun or rifle" I never get a direct answer. I wish people would just be honest and say "I like guns, I think that those kind of guns are cool and I don't want to give them up. They serve zero practical purpose for the general public, but I love them." Just be honest. And afterwords, grow up and realize that not everyone is responsible or mentally stable. I'm tired of this BS. I grew up around guns and I think they should never be taken away, but there is a difference between taking all guns away and reasonably limiting the type of gun you can own.

    getmyjive11

  • Again the "assault rifle" argument is a red herring. The dumbass who murdered those kids didnt even use one. As for uses, I shoot competetive 3 gun. I would suggest anti gun people try it and you would realize they are just tools. Not inherently evil.

    Surferdude

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports