In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1101
Online now 1109 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.
Is your issue regulation or government regulation? What if the NRA asked the gun stores to privately regulate better?
I do not care how much it could possibly limit these attacks, I do not want ANY legislation passed to limit what guns I could own. I'm terribly sorry that this scenario happened, but you don't punish the innocent for what one person did.
Call me hard hearted,but no amount of tragedy would change my mind
University of Alabama: The high mark of college football since 1892
If I were to answer your question you would simply have another question and yet another after that. I have answered numerous questions in here, and yet you keep finding more to ask. Why don't you just accept the fact that gun legislation is not the answer to this problem.
Then why should we arrest people who drink and drive if they haven't been involved in an accident? Until it happens, they're innocent, no? Yes, I'm being facetious, but the point is every piece of legislation we have on this issue is basically reactive. We need to try something proactive. Whatever that may be.
No, I'll just call you despicable, selfish, and ignorant.
The gas station attendants had concealed weapons, they were concealed behind the counter.
The other didnt prevent the crime? How mny victims were injured? Sounds good to me.
There is a YouTube video of an internet cafe robbery being held up when one of the patrons stands up and opens fire on the robbers. I know you're much too lazy to look it up, just saying these types of things happen on a regular basis.
It's useless man... people who think like this will never see it from a view that takes into account the overall welfare of society as opposed to their own personal "wants".
Drinking and driving puts others at a constant risk. A responsible firearm owner does not.
You cannot regulate, legislate morality. Criminals by definition do not follow laws. Gun restriction will only take guns from law abiding citizens. Hell drugs are regulated as hell and they are everywhere. Government has proven incompetent over and over why do you think they could do this right? Hell just look at FAST AND FURIOUS. They need gun crime to further their agenda.
Comparing canada to the US....hahahaha
Then we need to limit guns to only responsible owners. Maybe like owners who have passed a mental health screening...
But the problem is not every firearm owner is responsible. That's why we hear stories about kids finding their dad's gun and blowing a hole in the back of their skulls.
And I will call you an anti-constitutionalist
Taking away our ability to defend ourselves is giving society better overall wellfare???
Care to elaborate? Or are you just going to fall back on the "It's my right ... derrr Freedom derrrr Don't tell me what I need"
Did you just cite 'The Fast and the Furious' to make an argument?
Well, according to 'Armageddon' there's an asteroid headed straight for earth, so none of this is going to matter.
Legislating against a right is not the way to do it. Increase the mental healthcare systems capacity and efficiency, do whatever.
I am so opposed to having any gun legislation that whoever came to my door trying to take a semi-automatic weapon away(Or a any gun honestly) would have to kill me first.
For someone that says they've taken classes on the US Constitution, you don't seem to really understand it all that well.
Yes. It's called a nanny state. Some people need govt for everything.
I'm not even calling to ban anything, but when the 2nd Amendment was penned, the best we had were muskets that took sometimes minutes to reload. They had no idea we'd one day have the capability to unload a hundred rounds in the blink of an eye or be able to hit someone in the pupil from 1000 yards away. I'm in no way saying we should stomp all over the Constitution, far from it, but we need to stop acting like a document written nearly 300 years ago is above any form of analysis and discussion. Hell, that's why we're allowed to amend it in the first place.
Do you need assault rifles with extended mags to defend yourself?
I don't ahve to elaborate, for every single similarity you name I can name a way in which these countries are not similar! We need to judge laws on how they would effect us, not how they have effected other countries. Lord you people are completely out of touch with reality to assume because it worked in some places it will work here. And even if it did, it is an act against the constitution of the United States, thus illegal.
Try and grasp that last point.
Even if all we asked you to do was have your "higher class" assault weapons registered as such and ask you to take a safety and operations course?
For the record, I think we should do the same with automobiles that pass a certain power threshold. Some people simply aren't competent enough for certain things.
The gas station weapons were not concealed as in "concealed on a person". Totally different.
Just because the victim wasn't injured in the second case doesn't mean that he would have been injured without his gun. He still got robbed, the criminals still got away, were treated and then released back into the general public.
That point is irrelevant, we have a right to bear arms, and if you legislate against one type of firearm sooner or later they will all be banned when people start committing mass murders with them. There may not be a slippery slope with some things, but when talking about limiting rights, you are on a snowboard about to go down a glacier.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports