In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1340
Online now 1586 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
And yet with better stats people from all over the world would still give their left testicle to come to America and live. Stats mean little. America is great for a reason but its slowly turning into a place where many Americans are willing to give up freedoms that have been enjoyed so long because the acts of so few.
This post was edited by DrStache 16 months ago
I bet it would do more good if we banned all liberal hippies.
This entire email chain was debunked by FactCheck.
This is too complex of an issue to say we need to take a stance one way or another. We need a comprehensive approach that will tackle both guns, mental health, and our culture as a whole. It's going to take a while for that to happen, but these shootings are becoming a trend and the status quo no longer is an option IMO.
Lets try this again.
Please re-read the fabrication you cited in your original post...
"Germany ESTABLISHED gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, leaving a populace unable to defend itself against the Gestapo and SS. Hundreds of thousands died as a result.
Again... Gun laws were created under the Weimar Republic in 1928. Hitler didn't ESTABLISH gun control. This is a complete lie. They deregulated gun control for everyone except the a small group of citizens that they essentially already declared war with. The Nazis also took away passports, the right to run a business, the right to own real estate, etc. Jews were part of the intelligentsia and merchant class in Germany and few if any had guns in the first place.
Approx 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. However, over 95% of these were killed after WWII started with the invasion of Poland. Most of them were citizens of Poland, Ukraine and places not called Germany.
Much of the information you have cited is clearly incorrect or distorted history in order to affirm a preconceived belief structure.
The gun control laws that are cited in reference to Stalin are also about 20 years away from the actual date. But have fun making up numbers and data. Gun laws were enacted after an assassination attempt on Lenin in 1918. But enactment and enforcement are two different things. Thousands of ARMED citizens fought and sabotaged the Germans after they occupied the USSR. They clearly still kept their guns from WWI and the Russian Civil War.
One of the first groups targeted by Stalin during the purges was Military Officers. They ALL HAD GUNS, yet surprisingly, the only ones that ever used their guns were the ones that were given the option to commit suicide before arrest.
Stalin then targeted the Kulaks and Peasants for stealing grain, hoarding Vodka, etc. But I am sure they all just turned in their guns once the law was passed, even though the penalties for hoarding grain were more severe than the 400 ruble fine for owning a shotgun.
Haven't you ever read 1984? Having guns isn't going to save a population from Totalitarian governments. The people that survived the Stalin area, weren't the ones that fought back with guns. There were multiple peasant uprisings with GUNS and they were all brutally suppressed. Totalitarian governments turn everyone into an individual. The people that survived were the ones that snitched on their friends first. Many of the people that were killed by Stalin died because their neighbor didn't like their loud music, or thier wife wanted to marry the guy across the street.
Have fun distorting history in order to reaffirm your opinions.
That is obvious to anyone that doesn't' have 29,232 posts on a football message board.
Its also irrelevant. Nobody is going to revoke a 2nd amendment reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.
Its a third rail issue to stifle intelligent debate on a complex issue.
This post was edited by rms02d 16 months ago
I am all for psych evaluations, etc when buying a gun.
I am 100% against any assault weapons ban. I still need to buy my FN-FAL. Why shouldn't I be able to do so?
Why would you need a gun like that though? Would you be ok if you were able to rent them for use at gun ranges? I understand the collectible aspect, but if you bought a model that could not be used would that suffice as well?
I don't need half the shit in my house. I WANT it. And I am not okay with renting it as I can't customize it to my liking.
I also wouldn't be okay with not being able to use it.
BTW your arrogance offends me.
Who are you to tell me what I need? That is the problem with liberals like you. You all think you are so much smarter than everyone else that you know what people need and don't need, should and shouldn't have, etc. Just mind your business and we will do the same. Make sense?
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Marshall Nole 16 months ago
Jesus Christ someone's blood is boiling. Don't have a heart attack dude no one wants to nor cares to tell you what you do or do not need or want. He was giving a side to an argument, don't jump in a thread with a gun debate, drop your two cents, then expect everyone who doesn't agree with you to shut the hell up and not say anything.
Why So Serious?
Man oh man. Funny how you are offended that I told you what you need, but you have no problem telling me what my problem is. BTW I never told you what you needed. I asked why you needed it because I wanted to know. I never said you didn't need the gun. From my perspective, I do not need a gun like that so I wanted to see why someone does need it. You can ask me what my problem is and I'll tell you that I'm sick of the gun violence. I saw it destroy my school in 2007 and want to make sure that other communities do not have to go through the same situation that myself and fellow classmates went through.
All I did was try to ask a question. I tried to have a reasonable discussion with you asking if you would compromise. What I would like is to see this country not as dependent on guns and live in peace where civilians would have no need for guns, but that doesn't mean I want to ban all guns because I understand that others do not feel the same as me and are not willing to give up their guns. The 2nd Amendment has become ingrained in our society and I don't understand the reason why.
I would like to mind my own business, but I can't because that would be the status quo. I've said that the status quo in this situation is not an option because we're seeing mass shootings becoming a trend. So I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion with those that are gun advocates, especially automatic weapons.
That's the ultimate cop out. You ask for one practical use and here comes the ultra-defensive "Don't tell me what I need!", "It's my right!" obligatory response.
Psych test + mandatory waiting period/background check + reasonable limits on clip sizes + gun show restrictions is the way to go. It would help a great deal if we had better resources to treat mental illness, but that strays into a separate discussion.
Both extreme sides on this issue are myopic and foolish. A blanket gun ban will never work, but neither will the status quo.
This post was edited by Roflcopter118 16 months ago
on twitter @Sir_Roflcopter
It's like saying well the 21st Amendment gives me the right to drink, but there are stipulations to you drinking. You have to be at least 21 years old, can't be drunk in public, and cannot operate a vehicle, etc.
If the Federal Government wants to be smart about this, then they should do exactly what they did to increase the drinking age: limit federal funding to states, so states are forced to make restrictions and bans.
No, reread my question. You must be a Nazi
[applaud] you can copy my post count. Now if you could only count that high daddy would be proud
I have a gun like that because they are fun to shoot. Me and my friends like setting up targets and seeing who can hit them, at how far, things of that nature. It's what we are into. I could never shoot someone for know reason, it would be hard to shoot someone trying to harm me.
I do not believe its right to take guns away from individuals, like myself, who have no intention of harming anyone.
Do I believe we should have tougher laws about purchasing guns, absolutely. Do I think it will stop criminals from getting them, definitely not. But if it stops one person than it helps IMO.
Now there's a valid argument Scoot. That's how you debate. Also, I feel the same as you. Not everything has to be so all or nothing. Compromise is a great thing.
Use: I would use it to hunt. The .308 is a decent round for deer hunting.
I am not interested in bolt action rifles. This is the one I want.
Also, my dad and I for many years, the few times I get to see him, enjoy going to the range and shooting targets with these types of weapons.
So there are two reasons I need a FN-FAL.
This post was edited by Marshall Nole 16 months ago
This post was edited by ThaJoker 16 months ago
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
So you can't use a bolt action rifle to hunt? Or a pump? Or even a lever action?
Because you want it doesn't mean that you should have it.
Same can be said for:
Beer, liquor, cigs, drugs, cars, flat screen TVs, junk food, soft drinks, etc etc etc.
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?
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.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports