In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 2043
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.
Hm, nope never had any issues with it. You're clearly not speaking from experience.
Sure, let only criminals possess them. Your logic is stunning!
Also, he used a SIG and a Glock. Hardly anything special, two ordinary handguns.
How about allowing someone to carry a weapon on school property and stop his slaughtering of children.
I can rack rounds with my 870 as fast as a semi auto. Wanna take pump shotguns away as well?
Also got a .357 with 3 speedloaders. Where does it end?
What? Do you know how long semi auto shotguns have been around and are used for hunting? How does them being semi-auto make them less reliable. You are showing your ignorance of knowledge of guns.
You are hopeless
University of Alabama: The high mark of college football since 1892
Sorry, but I should have said legally obtained, not purchased. Point still is the same.
Please provide me a link to an example of where fully auto guns are being used in massacres. The only way to obtain them is with a class 3 license.
This post was edited by rollingtide2004 16 months ago
Yes because law enforcement would not own them...
If you want to add more police officers in schools fine, but I don't see many teachers or parents wanting more guns in schools. I don't see how anyone would be properly trained to react in that kind of situation. A better measure would be to improve building and classroom security.
So you only want to ban semi automatic guns and keep automatic guns? I don't understand the point you are trying to make?
The whole point of semi-automatic is to have more ammunition being dispersed at a greater rate. The gun is not going to be as steady with the kick back and you are less likely to only hit your intended target with multiple shots being fired. Key word is only.
but the tv said so!!!
Law enforcement did a great job of stopping all of the attacks that have you crying.
Wow, you really should stop.
It’s a familiar drill for millions of travelers: bare feet shuffling on a cold floor, belt off, emptied pockets, personal effects exposed for maximum humiliation. This surely constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause, explicitly prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.
Media is your source. Explains a lot. Try again, try doing your own research this time instead of letting someone else form your opinion for you.
My family has owned guns for years, but no semi automatic weapons and we've gotten along just fine.
Please tell me what I said there that was wrong.
What research have you done? You've used one of those guns so that makes you an expert?
I have hands on first person experience. You have what some biased writer/speaker has implanted in your head.
Congrats. Myself and family members have survived just fine with them as well. We also have not mass murdered anyone. What's your point?
The point is that a product you endorse is behind a lot of the violence in these mass shootings. Taking away these guns is not going to hinder your freedom or your security because there are other alternatives. It is only going to affect your want. That's a shame because you are not the problem. It's people who are abusing the product to hurt others that are the problem. But the product is the only thing we can predict/control in the situation and so we need to take action is limit the destruction other individuals may cause with those types of guns.
Your hands on experience is not going to change the perspective that guns are inherently dangerous, even more so when used improperly. Just because you have used it doesn't make it any safer for anyone else to use.
Little late seeing this, but I must interject. The above statement is unequivocally wrong, and shows the fundamental ignorance as to what most people believe are or are not within their constitutionally protected rights.
In 2008, SCOTUS decided Heller v. District of Columbia. The Court held that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects and individual's rights to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, legal hunting, etc., in "federal enclaves." (Note: "Federal Enclaves" is simply legalese for any place either owned/operated by the federal government, like national parks, or any other land not considered officially a part of a state. The place in which the Heller case was initiated was Washington D.C., and thus the question before the court was narrow in scope). This of course left the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond "federal enclaves" to the states completely unanswered.
Two years later in 2010, SCOTUS decided McDonald v. Chicago. In McDonald, the Court held that the same holding that it announced in Heller extended to the states, i.e., individual citizens have the right to possess firearms for traditionally lawful purposes within state boundaries.
The above two cases were not in 1939. They were within the last 5 years.
This post was edited by AUHeismanTrust 16 months ago
Started at the bottom, now we here.....better get used to it.
Baseball bats are the most commonly used murder weapon in the country.. lets take those away, they can use tennis rackets instead.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports