In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 2401
Online now 1326 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.
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 16 months ago
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.
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.
Grasping for straws.
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?
So you can't answer the question, I thought you were some gun expert?
“If you remember me, then I don't care if everyone else forgets.” ― Haruki Murakami
How so? Just because one person can't handle their liquor and t-bones a car, doesn't mean that every one will.
Are fully automatic weapons legal?
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?
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 16 months ago
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 34WEbuckeye 16 months ago
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...
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.
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.
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.
Fast powerful cars are unessesary too. Why do we have them?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports