Online Now 3524

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 3316
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3497
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

Gun Control

  • Hot Sauce said...

    The Japanese buy up places all the time in Brazil. Doesn't mean brazil has better living conditions than Japan.

    Buying up is different than uprooting whole families and moving 6,000 miles to a new culture.

    signature image

    Looks like another perfect day.

    Under Review

  • Under Review said...

    Hell yes things need changing.

    The government needs to take it's nose out of everything and get back to letting it's citizens and business run their own affairs.

    There needs to be massive cuts in federal spending and the release of many laws and statutes back to state control.

    Congress needs consecutive term limits and the lobbiest's and special interest groups need to lose access to politicians

    The courts need to stop making policy and merely interpret the law.

    Taxes need to be simplified and deductions sliced.

    I could go on for another page but I won't.

    I wholeheartedly agree.

    The whole screw "American Exceptionalism" also needs to be on a societal level as well.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba ●

  • bhiley77 said...

    Why not? Are you less likely to go postal if you've been in the service? What about PTSD? Seems it would be more likely, not less.

    When I ask this question, it truly isnt meant to be argumentative as I really don't know enough on the con side of gun control to argue here, but what are your reasons for why citizens should be allowed to own such weapons? Other than the obvious, "it's our constitutional right" because that document was written over 2 centuries ago when automatic weapons didn't exist. Are there purposes that they serve in which they need to be accessible to the public because from what I can tell it just seems the bad outweighs the good by so much.

    Again not trying to be argumentative here just would like to hear your opinion. Or anyone else who feels the same way he does.

    signature image signature image signature image

    mac1992 ●

  • rrt1187 said...

    Imo. The society should get to where its normal for everyone to carry and handheld weapon. This way the public can protect themself when some nut job tries to act out. It would less likely happen if everyone knew that around you everyone else was carrying a gun as well. The problem is most of these people go crazy and think they can succeed in murdering a bunch of people in a mass shooting because they know everyone else is helpless in the situation.

    The problem with this terrible line of reasoning is that not everyone is a Janes Bond-esque marksman. In the confusion of a shooting the people trying to take out the bad guy would regularly hit innocent bystanders.

    My solutions ( which are hardly new i realize) wouldn't prevent anyone with a clean background from getting a gun. They would also make sure ordinary citizens understood how to use and when to use their firearms which would be better for everyone.

    TalHawkins112 ●

  • gobigblue21 said...

    When I ask this question, it truly isnt meant to be argumentative as I really don't know enough on the con side of gun control to argue here, but what are your reasons for why citizens should be allowed to own such weapons? Other than the obvious, "it's our constitutional right" because that document was written over 2 centuries ago when automatic weapons didn't exist. Are there purposes that they serve in which they need to be accessible to the public because from what I can tell it just seems the bad outweighs the good by so much.

    Again not trying to be argumentative here just would like to hear your opinion. Or anyone else who feels the same way he does.

    While you might dismiss the reason, it's to prevent tyranny. The Founding Fathers wanted the civilians to be free, so they wrote the First Amendment to the Constitution. Next, they needed a way to protect and insure that freedom, that's why the Second Amendment is the second amendment.

    If the populace is unarmed then the government can enforce whatever policy they wish.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Face Stabber

  • Eliminating guns is never going to happen, but I would love to see some alternate proposals discussed. Anyone have thoughts on making ammunition really expensive? Say rubber bullets are cheap, but live ammo is very costly. This would allow people to still own guns (and have live ammo perhaps in their gun at home to protect from intruder, robbery, etc) but it would make it much more difficult to unload countless rounds in a shooting spree. What if a bullet was $100? What would that do to crime rates?

    c_woodson

  • Face Stabber said...

    While you might dismiss the reason, it's to prevent tyranny. The Founding Fathers wanted the civilians to be free, so they wrote the First Amendment to the Constitution. Next, they needed a way to protect and insure that freedom, that's why the Second Amendment is the second amendment.

    If the populace is unarmed then the government can enforce whatever policy they wish.

    No offense, but civilians with guns wouldn't deter any serious encroachment by the level of "government" force you are supposing.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba ●

  • TalHawkins112 said...

    The problem with this terrible line of reasoning is that not everyone is a Janes Bond-esque marksman. In the confusion of a shooting the people trying to take out the bad guy would regularly hit innocent bystanders.

    It's very hard to hit your intended target in stressful situations. Tunnel vision takes over, pulse and respiration rates spike and adrenaline takes over. Unless you have extensive combat shooting traing and the muscle memory to be able to combat this, i would not recomend firing in public near innocent bystanders.

    signature image signature image signature image

    5 Time POTW--Gringo Mafia Director of Guerrilla Warfare

    19BlueAndGold85

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    No offense, but civilians with guns wouldn't deter any serious encroachment by the level of "government" force you are supposing.

    Yeah the US government could pretty much destroy anythign they wanted. Armed or unarmed

    signature image signature image signature image

    5 Time POTW--Gringo Mafia Director of Guerrilla Warfare

    19BlueAndGold85

  • bhiley77 said...

    Automatic Rifle. You thought it meant assault, didn't you?

    It actually means Armalite Rifle, the original company who created thus rifle, SIAP

    signature image signature image signature image

    RagingBull05

  • 19BlueAndGold85 said...

    Yeah the US government could pretty much destroy anythign they wanted. Armed or unarmed

    Just like in Algeria, right?

    signature image signature image signature image

    RagingBull05

  • bhiley77 said...

    Yep, just like there was never any chance the mighty US Army would ever have any problem with those hapless Iraqis and Taliban. Over in a week, right?

    Unless the entire non-"governmental" population found a way to hold up in the Rockies, yeah I'd consider those two pretty incomparable.

    You are also assuming that said takeover would require knowledge from the civilian population or actual warfare (traditional or guerrilla).

    Then again, most of this crap is just plan conspiratorial garbage, but clearly some on here think its within the realm of reality.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba ●

  • bhiley77 said...

    Yep, just like there was never any chance the mighty US Army would ever have any problem with those hapless Iraqis and Taliban. Over in a week, right?

    Shitty military training is still better than no training.

    signature image signature image signature image

    sf2k4 ●

  • I could stomach A & C but banning "assault rifles" is dumb. And even applying A & C wouldn't do anything. Drugs and prostitution are illegal but most of us could get both with one phone call. "assault rifles" is a term created by anti gun progressives. The name "assault rifle" is inappropriate for what they really are. It's sad people get murdered. My best friend was murdered in Edmonton where they have strict gun laws. Didnt save him... I have a 5.56 "assault rifle" and I intend to keep it for crazies like this batman killer. My father died of heart disease but I don't want McDonald's banned. But I completely understand how emotions would raise this gun control issue.

    This post was edited by I3usdriver on 7/20/2012 at 8:51 PM

    signature image

    Check out my 2 deep of UM's base 4-3 under defense, let me know your thoughts. Last updated: 3/28/12

    I3usdriver ●

  • No one should have the right to conceal a gun in a city. No one is going to have a gun and have good intentions in a city. there will still be shootings, but no one does anything with a gun worth while in an urban area anyway.

    signature image signature image signature image

    We are college football

    Brady Hoke

  • bhiley77 said...

    You're missing the point -- it's a deterrent. Would you pick a fight with somebody in a wild west saloon? No, because you'd be reasonably confident they had a colt revolver on their hip and wouldn't hesitate to use it on you. For a contemporary example, would you rob a store if you knew that about 1/4 of the people in the store were packing? Nope.

    Also, generally people who own guns and especially those who carry them know how to properly use them. I've never met a single gun owner that wasn't gravely serious about their proper use.

    This is still a terrible idea. It's called escalation- give the populace handguns, they get ARs. Give the populace ARs and they get RPGs.

    And again, it would still happen occasionally despite the deterrent and with everyone firing wildly more innocents would be harmed than if the innocents had no guns.

    So that idea would really result in more deaths.

    It's better to make it harder to get guns and force people to be properly trained than make it easier for people to buy guns.

    TalHawkins112 ●

  • TalHawkins112 said...

    This is still a terrible idea. It's called escalation- give the populace handguns, they get ARs. Give the populace ARs and they get RPGs.

    And again, it would still happen occasionally despite the deterrent and with everyone firing wildly more innocents would be harmed than if the innocents had no guns.

    So that idea would really result in more deaths.

    It's better to make it harder to get guns and force people to be properly trained than make it easier for people to buy guns.

    Most of the people I know don't carry guns around with them everywhere they go, so I see no reason that this would make the population less safe if guns were banned.

    This post was edited by Brady Hoke on 7/20/2012 at 10:18 PM

    signature image signature image signature image

    We are college football

    Brady Hoke

  • bhiley77 said...

    I wonder why the majority of innovation occurs in the USA and not Norway. Have you ever wondered that?

    Because the population of Norway is only 5 million people. Thats like saying why does the majority of innovation occur in the other 49 states but not Minnesota.

    Western Europe has roughly the same population as the United States. That would be a fairer comparison.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    joetheogre ●

  • bhiley77 said...

    What is the justification for all of our other rights? I understand that's the answer you were hoping to avoid, but the same question you pose could be posed of all of the other rights we have. At the end of the day, if viewed with the same lens that we do gun rights, it could be established that all of the rights we enjoy are "nice to have, but not essential".

    As to "assault weapons" in particular, there's no good reason to outlaw these. They're not disproportionately used in committing crimes. The reason for this is that they're expensive, upwards of $1000 for well made ones, where as the guns most often used to commit crimes are cheap, "saturday night special" type handguns. They can't be concealed, the ammunition is expensive, etc etc. Yes, when somebody goes postal they can cause a lot of damage with them, but you can cause just as much with handguns, you just might have to reload more often. States with restrictions on such weapons haven't seen any measurable impact from having done so.

    Thank you for your response, but there's no way this guy could have managed to shoot over 50 people in a movie theater with a handgun. These kinds of massacres these days always end up being with huge automatic weapons. Again I'm someone who doesn't know a ton about guns but I find it pretty hard to believe that a 9 milimeter is as dangerous as an M4 or an AK47.

    Again, do these guns serve any actual purpose in society other than, "just in case?"

    signature image signature image signature image

    mac1992 ●

  • Brady Hoke said...

    No one should have the right to conceal a gun in a city. No one is going to have a gun and have good intentions in a city. there will still be shootings, but no one does anything with a gun worth while in an urban area anyway.

    How about to protect themselves? Is that not a good reason to have a gun in a city? I have a friend who was at a gathering of friends when a robber came in and robbed them then started shooting. They would probably all be dead except for the fact that one had his conceal and carry and shot the robber 2x. Sounds like a great reason to conceal a gun to me.

    dpfenny

  • gobigblue21 said...

    Thank you for your response, but there's no way this guy could have managed to shoot over 50 people in a movie theater with a handgun. These kinds of massacres these days always end up being with huge automatic weapons. Again I'm someone who doesn't know a ton about guns but I find it pretty hard to believe that a 9 milimeter is as dangerous as an M4 or an AK47.

    Again, do these guns serve any actual purpose in society other than, "just in case?"

    Better outlaw shotguns as well. Saw off a shotgun or two and enter the theatre and it would be very easy to kill 12 or more people.

    dpfenny

  • joetheogre said...

    Because the population of Norway is only 5 million people. Thats like saying why does the majority of innovation occur in the other 49 states but not Minnesota.

    Western Europe has roughly the same population as the United States. That would be a fairer comparison.

    +1. I hear we give more total foreign aid than they do, too.... we must be much more generous.

    signature image signature image

    Next question.

    Cuba Gooding Jr ●

  • bhiley77 said...

    There's absolutely nothing illogical about that. It's fine if you disagree, but the logic was flawless.

    Ok then I want outlaw forks and spoons cause they make people fat

    signature image

    I dream of a day when chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned.

    Gfortress5

  • This thread makes me laugh.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Team Targaryen

    MarineMountie ●

  • Gfortress5 said...

    Ok then I want outlaw forks and spoons cause they make people fat

    That said, I am all for the core right to own or collect firearms. But even as a former Marine I truly don't see the purpose of owning assault weapons or automatic weapons without a special collectors license. I know this, I live in Illinois which is basically the only state that does not allow you to carry a gun and in Cook county you can't own a gun, it's just wrong inho. I have had local police officers tell me that with my back ground they would expect me to help them if they were in trouble, but I don't know that I would because of all of the liability and gun laws

    signature image

    I dream of a day when chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned.

    Gfortress5

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports