What's new
By:

Thoughts and Prayers

Bulletproof said:
There's this little constitutional amendment that gets in the way of all these solutions. That's the place to start, thriller, if you're serious. And what do you think your chances are on that? I mean, you've got the majority, right?
Click to expand...

My suggested regulations aren’t contrary to the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment doesn’t say nor suggest that guns should be sold without regulations.

The actual text of the amendment even says that guns and militias should be regulated. Scalia admitted in the last major 2nd amendment case that the SC handled that guns should be regulated and that some shouldn’t be to sold to the public.

Scalia!
 
The Thriller said:
My suggested regulations aren’t contrary to the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment doesn’t say nor suggest that guns should be sold without regulations.

The actual text of the amendment even says that guns and militias should be regulated. Scalia admitted in the last major 2nd amendment case that the SC handled that guns should be regulated and that some shouldn’t be to sold to the public.

Scalia!
Click to expand...

You have said we could do what Australia did. We can't. We can't.

That's why I suggest the militia system. Militias would exist outside direct government control. "Well regulated militias" would fit perfectly into our 2nd amendment language. Militias would act as a filter for some of the craziest most radical gun nuts. I believe they would also raise the bar as far as training and discipline. These radicals would also be putting their militia buddies at risk if they abused their gun rights (aka, shooting up public places).

I believe it is an elegant solution that would actually strengthen the deterrent gun rights provide to the public by providing more organized groups who controlled even more powerful arsenals than any individual could. I mean, I think militias could own fully automatic rifles, grenades, and could even attempt to acquire tanks and other large arms. They would have to be certified, would have to have clean records and provide background checks for their members, have safety programs, training programs, etc.. I think it would do everything the 2nd amendment ever intended, but better than it has ever been done.
 
Eenie-Meenie said:
I think a person's life takes precedence over being harassed. The MeToo movement is much about a breakdown in communication between men and women -- this is not to say that men in power don't abuse and sexually harass women. But do you know any guy who doesn't talk differently about sex with their buddies than they do, even with their wives? And if they talked that way in front of a woman who isn't their wife or significant other, they would be charged with sexual harassment.
Click to expand...

That depends on the environment. In one game where a rooster is one of the tokens, the term "****-blocking" was used in mixed company. On the other hand, I don't discuss anything like this at work, even with just men. Men can be offended too, you know.

However, the main point, and question, is why we can't do both. Even if A is more important than B, why not do both A and B?
 
You Aussies here,

Did your country’s govt buy back program of guns that started years ago really work?
 
Wes Mantooth said:
You Aussies here,

Did your country’s govt buy back program of guns that started years ago really work?
Click to expand...

yeah cause it was carrot and stick, you had, cant remember off the top of my head, 12 months lets say to hand in weapons and get paid for them, I believe no questions asked, (exemptions for muskets and what not) but then if you were caught with them afterwards it was prison time. And the law was enforced, for instance if you're a registered gun owner cops can show up at your house and search it to make sure you comply with the law, they can also use sniffer dogs and what not to look for other weapons, I know a couple of people who got into **** this way, they all got fines cause the guns they had were long arms and not hand guns they just got substantial fines. (I suspect them being farmers, mitigated the penalties they faced as well.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: MVP
rare144 said:
did I politely exit this argument? then have scum suckers start quoting me?

anyone else want on the ignore list?
Click to expand...
You're going to punish people you don't agree with by not listening to their responses to info you left on a message board?

lolololololol

How were people supposed to know that you have politely exited and your posts are now out of bounds... especially given that you have now not so politely returned?
 
No short version for the lazies?
 
I wonder, for those that are caught alive in mass shootings, if they were tortured in the most inhuman and painful way possible that's long and drawn out and broadcast on a live, public, live stream, if it would help convince some ****s not to **** up innocent lives. Apparently, the system and media coverage of mass shootings are not working.

I still think there should be more gun control laws too. Laws that prevent the sell of ARs and bump stocks; laws for owning a gun you have to be over 21, laws for parents who own guns and have kids under 21 in the household and how the guns must be locked up and meet a certain criteria, and laws that do annual background checks on owners and their mental state and medications. Yeah, doesn't sound like freedom, but because we have so many ****s who destroy so many lives, I do not care. I'd rather lose some of my rights, as a gun owner, than see people lose their lives.

The FBI, authorities and school officials royally ****ed up in the latest shooting. I feel like there should be stricker laws for those that **** up directly and leads to innocent lives being taken too.
 
The Thriller said:
We could resolve gun violence in one month if we enacted Australia like reforms today.
Click to expand...

One month? Lol, no chance. Americans aren't handing in their guns. Something like that would take years and would be a pretty big mess. Australians handed in between 600,000 and 700,000 guns. That's a private collection in Texas. Compared to the U.S. they estimate about 40 million guns would need to be collected to have a similar impact.

Nothing like that is ever happening in the U.S. However, our government could still take measures to keep maniacs from pulling off mass shooting sprees by limiting the types of weapons available and specifically high-capacity magazines. We're not going to completely stop shootings, but we could make it much more difficult to pull off mass shootings.

There is just way too much money in gun sales, and the NRA has too many politicians in their pocket. Mostly Republican scum bags, but you can't place all the blame on them when Obama really did nothing to address the problem either.
 
To do what Australia did we'd have to change the 2nd amendment. I think realistically, we all know that isn't going to happen.

So think of different things.
 
freakazoid said:
One month? Lol, no chance. Americans aren't handing in their guns. Something like that would take years and would be a pretty big mess. Australians handed in between 600,000 and 700,000 guns. That's a private collection in Texas. Compared to the U.S. they estimate about 40 million guns would need to be collected to have a similar impact.

Nothing like that is ever happening in the U.S. However, our government could still take measures to keep maniacs from pulling off mass shooting sprees by limiting the types of weapons available and specifically high-capacity magazines. We're not going to completely stop shootings, but we could make it much more difficult to pull off mass shootings.
Click to expand...

This.

Australia had a population of under 20 million when they did their gun bans. The US has a population of 320 million. It's not even comparable and having the same thoughts and expectations is unreasonable too.
 
JustTheTip said:
To do what Australia did we'd have to change the 2nd amendment. I think realistically, we all know that isn't going to happen.

So think of different things.
Click to expand...

Well, it is called an amendment, to be fair. I think it certainly could and will happen when today's youth starts voting. Do you read Reddit by chance?
 
Archie Moses said:
Well, it is called an amendment, to be fair. I think it certainly could and will happen when today's youth starts voting. Do you read Reddit by chance?
Click to expand...

No I don't read Reddit.

I think the chances of us ever having to hand over our guns are so incredibly slim that it's not worth discussing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top