In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 2675
Online now 2570 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.
The only difference between a .223 long rifle (hunting version) and a .223 long rifle (''assault" version) is cosmetics... how does it make sense to say one is okay because it doesn't look 'scary'?
This post was edited by 34WEbuckeye 15 months ago
and my hypothetical nuclear weapon is used for defensive purpose in order to maintain my own well regulated militia. you do not have the right to take my nuke away. the constitution says so
What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.--Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
Go away troll, the grown ups are having a discussion here.
No no I get that but that's a completely different argument. IF assault rifles are eventually done away with how on earth do you collect them?
This post was edited by Red Goodman 15 months ago
"Nobody makes me bleed my own blood, nobody!"
You won't get a legit answer with that question. Most people that are for the ban really don't have a clue what they are trying to ban. The ones that do know what an "assault" rifle is will tell you that it is the size of the magazine that makes them dangerous while ignoring that it takes only a second or two more to shoot two 10 round clips than 1 20 round clip. When you are a mentally unstable person that is shooting unarmed people, what does 2 extra seconds matter?
I'm more concerned with why a private citizen would need something like an M249. Sort of like I don't get why anyone non-military would want to use tracer rounds (but that's not really related to this discussion).
This is a perfect example. Can you name an event in our country where someone used an automatic weapon to kill several people?
Who has heard of someone using vest piercing ammo to shoot up a crowd? You won't because people with vests are usually cops or military. These lunatics are shooting up gun free zones, not police departments.
Show me where the numbers are out there to support your point.
I just showed you that Obama has been out of office 10 times less than his immediate predecessor. Feel free to point me to numbers that contradict that.
And this is another point. Is it really the weapon as much as the person using it and the clips being used? Unless you walk in looking like Rambo with a 200 shell clip are the things we're talking about really going to change? Most of these mass shootings could have been done with two handguns uh blazin with two extended clips no? Just playing devils advocate here I guess....
Wouldn't it be easier to ban the use or sale of extended clips for any gun and call it a day?
Is that not the same thing as a SAW? Who has those besides the military? Have you actually heard of someone using a SAW to kill a civilian or a group of people?
I think by now you know that actual facts don't matter. They make up their own.
It's a fundamental difference of ideologies when it comes to certain things. On the one hand, you are correct in noting that armor piercing rounds have not been used in most of these shootings and, even if they were, it's not like innocent people are wearing kevlar. And as long as the average citizen doesn't fvck it up, why treat them as guilty of any wrongdoing?
At the same time, I've seen the extreme side of that argument carry over into saying someone owning an M1A1 Abrams should be totally allowed because of the same reasons (if they haven't done anything wrong, what's the harm?).
I feel like it's either all or nothing, depending on the side of the fence you're on. Personally, I would just like (a) stricter regulations/licensing for "higher powered" firearms (I've said the same for higher powered vehicles) and (b) a "ban" only of just ridiculously unnecessary weapons for the general public (like the aforementioned tank).
Yeah, I have to say that the bursting of that little bubble on election night was just delicious to watch.
Actually, there are quite a few videos on YouTube of regular people shooting off weapons such as the SAW, though their legality (and country of origin) I'm not 100% sure on.
But you're right, they haven't been used, AFAIK, by any "crazed gunman" in one of these mass shootings. But is that really a good reason to allow the general public to own something that really has no use outside of a combat zone? What, do you really need a light machine gun to defend your home? I've never heard of anyone using an RPG in a mass "shooting" either, but that doesn't mean I think your Average Joe should own one.
This post was edited by sf2k4 15 months ago
That's my point. When you bust into a gun free zone with the intent to massacre people, a simple .22 pistol with a bag full of 7 round clips will take out a large # of people. That's why it seems to me that the assault rifle ban really has nothing to do with anything besides an attack on a specific weapon because they look scary. If you have the intent to do harm then the size of the clip and the type of gun are irrelevant.
Don't be facetious, now. If I walk into a crowded room with an AR-15 (which I don't view as any sort of "scary" weapon; that's the media's stupid asses) vs. a SAW, I can surely do a hell of a lot more damage with the latter.
I was really hoping that the bursting of said bubble would lead them back to reality. We desperately need both parties to be effective so there are the proper political and legislative balances. If this board is any indication, they seem to be going even further into the bizarro world. It's actually kind of depressing.
I grew up a republican but today if there were someone out there planning to run under the "Common Sense" party in 3 years I'd be just as happy voting for them. If both parties would stfu and listen to each other we'd be better off IMO, but there's way too much finger pointing, titty sucking and hidden agendas for that to happen. You're level headed on most issues I've seen, what is your opinion on gun control in a nut(shell)?
It has become a "My Team vs. Your Team" mindset where compromise is viewed as weak. I know the latter is true because a few posters (not ITT) said so point blank in past discussions.
Since we are calling out specific weapons, of course people shouldn't be carrying automatics, driving tanks, flying fighter jets, etc. That is an extreme counter argument that is apples to oranges. Anyone who says that civilians should be able to own high military technology isn't being serious. Plus, you can't legally own any of that now, so it's irrelevant.
The nuclear argument is just ridiculous. How/why would anyone have nuclear capabilities? Iran has been trying to build it for years but now a regular citizen has access to it? (Not saying it is your argument but I've seen it posted several times)
That's the beautiful thing about the 2nd amendment and the constitution... You don't have to need___ to have it... You don't need to express your opinion about things or be able to speak out again the govt if you felt you needed too.. But we can.
The fact of the matter is, it really doesn't matter if you see a need for this, or that. And the 249/saw is aneextremely expensive and hard thing to come by... Not to mention the ridiculous back ground checked you'd need to get it... There's a better chance a military member who carries one would go nuts and take it off base with him than someone who bought one legally or illegally (AT LEAST 10K legally and 40k illegally).
I'm trying to find a hard list of what weapons are considered legal under the NFA's Title 2 designation. Help a brother out?
The argument to absurdity goes both ways. You can't tell me you haven't seen the numerous posts here (and all over the internet) from people claiming that Obama's coming to take all your guns. Nobody's trying to outlaw all personal weapons, but it doesn't stop people from freaking out about the idea.
Just because we have Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you can get away with threatening my or my family's life. I'm not here to strip any freedoms away, but to act as if they are totally, 100% unhindered and with no rules is just not correct. I'm not calling for Communist Russia over here, but civilized society has rules. This isn't the Wild West.
The one that bothers me the most is the "If this, than this" argument. Such as, "Well, if we're going to ban guns, we should ban knives, too!" or, "Well, if you want to legalize marijuana, we should legalize cocaine, too!"
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports