Steve Kerr's Passionate Personal Stand on Gun Control

[Gameface]

What is the primary function of diesel fuel? How about fertilizer? Why do those things exist?

A semi-automatic rifle does not exist to become a fully automatic weapon. Despite the cartoonish concept that it's easy to convert a semi-automatic rifle, it's not easy. The bigger issue, I'd imagine, is that it would most likely result in a firearm that is extremely prone to jamming, feeding issues, stovepipes and horrible accuracy. Despite the propaganda AR-15s are not built to be fully automatic. They aren't up to it.

 

[bigb]

For the record, I am not one of those "screw gun control at all costs" guys. There is obviously a problem, but IMO, going after guns doesn't get to the root of the problem. Much like mowing the weed patch doesn't solve the problem of the weeds.

 

[fishonjazz]

A semi-automatic rifle does not exist to become a fully automatic weapon. Despite the cartoonish concept that it's easy to convert a semi-automatic rifle, it's not easy. The bigger issue, I'd imagine, is that it would most likely result in a firearm that is extremely prone to jamming, feeding issues, stovepipes and horrible accuracy. Despite the propaganda AR-15s are not built to be fully automatic. They aren't up to it.

I thought he was saying that fertilzer and diesel fuel can be used to kill. So they are no different than a gun so they should be banned and restricted if guns are.

I was making the point that guns and fertilizer and diesel fuel are not the same. Guns are used for killing way more than fertilzer imo.

 

[Gameface]

I thought he was saying that fertilzer and diesel fuel can be used to kill. So they are no different than a gun so they should be banned and restricted if guns are.

I was making the point that guns and fertilizer and diesel fuel are not the same. Guns are used for killing way more than fertilzer imo.

Yeah, on that point you're right.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I thought he was saying that fertilzer and diesel fuel can be used to kill. So they are no different than a gun so they should be banned and restricted if guns are.

I was making the point that guns and fertilizer and diesel fuel are not the same. Guns are used for killing way more than fertilzer imo.

Obviously, fish.

We're just making fun of Dala's stupid, and ignorant rhetoric.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

Many firearms can be modified to make them automatic to some extent, including AR-15s.

While it's generally not good for the firearm, it's functional enough for one mass-shooting

I don't think I've heard of a single incident like this where an automatic weapon was used. Poor argument.

BTW, I am a gun owner who is in favor of stricter gun control laws. Banning guns altogether is not something I support though, for multiple reasons.

 

[Batman]

What a dumb ***.

I don't think it's fair to label him a dumb *** because, essentially, he doesn't want innocent people to be murdered by a mass shooter and he thinks strict gun laws would limit people from being murdered.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I don't think it's fair to label him a dumb *** because, essentially, he doesn't want innocent people to be murdered by a mass shooter and he thinks strict gun laws would limit people from being murdered.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app

That's exactly why he called him a dumb ***. The proposed laws would have had no impact in the case they are currently using to push for the laws (as usual).

 

[Dr. Jones]

I'm a selfish mother ****er.
I want to ban guns.
I keep mine.
Unfair advantage over the dumbasses that handed them over.

 

[Boris]

BTW, Islamic extremists can be modified into smart (relatively speaking) bombs. Pretty much a one time trick per extremist, because they are always destroyed in the process, but they can do a ton of damage (particularly when a 747 is involved). Should we ban those?

YES! We need to declare WWIII on non democratic religious nations. I prefer starting in Saudi Arabia as we already have a stronghold there.
America an are gun toting fools will bring world peace come hell or high water.

 

[Boris]

Most rapes and murders are done illegally. We should legalize rape and murder.

Many fishers an hunters poach illegally. We should ban fishing an hunting.
Many pet owners abuse or neglect there animals. We should outlaw dog an cat pets.

 

[fishonjazz]

Many fishers an hunters poach illegally. We should ban fishing an hunting.
Many pet owners abuse or neglect there animals. We should outlaw dog an cat pets.

My point exactly.
You outlaw what you can and do your best to stop the worst things. That's why gun restrictions are the right thing to do.

You can never prevent everything.

 

[MVP]

. The proposed laws would have had no impact in the case they are currently using to push for the laws (as usual).

It made huge difference in Australia. Don't be ignorant.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

It made huge difference in Australia. Don't be ignorant.

Nobody proposed Australia like laws because they know there is not a chance they would go through. What did happen is that an Islamic terrorist attacked a nightclub with a gun. Instead of confronting the problem of Islamic terrorism they scrubbed his declaration of why he did what he did from the 911 transcript, then proposed legislation making it illegal for someone on the no-fly list to buy a gun. Guess what. This guy wasn't on the no-fly list. In other words the legislation would have no impact on the event that sparked it, except to deflect conversation from the actual problem.

I strongly agree that terrorists shouldn't be allowed to buy guns, but based upon how the no fly list has worked so far I would bet that all sorts of political opponents on the left would start showing up on that list if that legislation went through.

Personally, I don't own a gun and I don't want one. But if I had reason to believe that someone intended to harm me then I would want the right to legally get a gun because I know that in this country they will always be available to criminals. No legislation will ever change that.

 

[MVP]

Nobody proposed Australia like laws because they know there is not a chance they would go through.

Why? Don't Americans want to stop mass shootings? Or this is something which is part of USA forever?

 

[Boris]

Nobody proposed Australia like laws because they know there is not a chance they would go through. What did happen is that an Islamic terrorist attacked a nightclub with a gun. Instead of confronting the problem of Islamic terrorism they scrubbed his declaration of why he did what he did from the 911 transcript, then proposed legislation making it illegal for someone on the no-fly list to buy a gun. Guess what. This guy wasn't on the no-fly list. In other words the legislation would have no impact on the event that sparked it, except to deflect conversation from the actual problem.

I strongly agree that terrorists shouldn't be allowed to buy guns, but based upon how the no fly list has worked so far I would bet that all sorts of political opponents on the left would start showing up on that list if that legislation went through.

Personally, I don't own a gun and I don't want one. But if I had reason to believe that someone intended to harm me then I would want the right to legally get a gun because I know that in this country they will always be available to criminals. No legislation will ever change that.

If you want no gun terrorists we must invade Russia an destroy them. Most there exports are municians to terrorist Muslim countries.

 

[Boris]

My point exactly.
You outlaw what you can and do your best to stop the worst things. That's why gun restrictions are the right thing to do.

You can never prevent everything.

Sounds good. After guns the worst thing will be cars. After cars worst thing will be chemicals. After chemicals worst thing will be pets. After pets worst thing will be construction activity. After construction activity will be swimming an bathing. After that it will be choking by eating.
Let us ban everything because [MENTION=840]fishonjazz[/MENTION] thinks we NEED "to stop the worst things".

 

[fishonjazz]

Sounds good. After guns the worst thing will be cars. After cars worst thing will be chemicals. After chemicals worst thing will be pets. After pets worst thing will be construction activity. After construction activity will be swimming an bathing. After that it will be choking by eating.
Let us ban everything because [MENTION=840]fishonjazz[/MENTION] thinks we NEED "to stop the worst things".

Exactly.

 

[Boris]

Exactly.

I was not around for prohibition ending in 33 but I am in my sixties an saw much of the war on drugs waged against are counter culture movement. If you ask me the war on drugs was a government campaign to retain control. What with the hippies an religious boycotts on Vietnam an the rock an roll music that was a phenomenon against government control.

This all grew out of the post prohibition era. People never tell you that. The prohibition parents reinvigorated the American spirit of liberty in there children.

I have seen the failure in the war on drugs. You cannot outlaw it it is insane we try. Let people make there choices an suffer the consequences. You cannot outlaw guns either. You never will. Try an control tgem tightly an you will create mafias just like in prohibition an war on drugs an even prostitution what with all the sex trafficking going on.

Is that the goal of anti gun people? Sometimes I wonder if they are Chinese infiltrates making ruckus to influence are politics. You know, they have a couple million paid dedicates to post on are news articles for communist influence purposes.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Why? Don't Americans want to stop mass shootings? Or this is something which is part of USA forever?

The two main reasons (which you have probably already heard a million times so I'm not sure why you're asking me) are that Americans consider the right to bear arms a huge deal. Every time there is any indication that this right might be impinged upon gun sales spike. The second is that there are so many guns in circulation that criminals will always be able to get one, no matter how many laws you make against it. So the only people who would be disarmed are the law abiding citizens.