What's new
By:

Gun Control

In Utah, it is easier to obtain a semi-auto and endless amounts of ammo than it is to get a beer.

This shouldn't be.

I welcome opposing arguments to this.
 
BabyPeterzz said:
So are you saying we don't see more crimes committed with these weapons because *gasp* they are legal yet highly regulated? You don't say......
Click to expand...

Well they aren't very useful weapons in the commission of your typical crime.
 
The Thriller said:
In Utah, it is easier to obtain a semi-auto and endless amounts of ammo than it is to get a beer.

This shouldn't be.

I welcome opposing arguments to this.
Click to expand...

I've often said that gun restrictions in places like NY and DC are like alcohol restrictions in Utah. They're made by people who aren't familiar with the object being regulated and that they regard as evil and unnecessary.
 
SaltyDawg said:
I agree. We should remove the comedic alcohol restrictions in this state.
Click to expand...

Isn't it funny how a state which calls for less intervention and smaller government is such a gross offender of overbearing gov intervention and huge gov?

Our alcoholic laws are ridiculous and just a month or two ago a choir in herriman had to cancel singing "all shook up" by Elvis because it was too risqué. Amazing
 
Not to mention the gov constantly messing with gay rights issues, women's issues, education, health care, and highway funding. What happened to the transparency when Herbert gave away $13 million to his buddies? How bout our dear attorney general, bro. Swallow?
 
Gameface said:
Well they aren't very useful weapons in the commission of your typical crime.
Click to expand...

Dude, so you're telling me that you have a choice between a machine gun and a flame thrower, and you would choose the machine gun???

Did you ever play Contra???
 
Gameface said:
I've often said that gun restrictions in places like NY and DC are like alcohol restrictions in Utah. They're made by people who aren't familiar with the object being regulated and that they regard as evil and unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have found a better reason to approve Obama's solution myself! Many governments are feeling the pressure to address this guns issues. Some (Spring City) are "encouraging" (they eliminated the word "requirement" and substituted it for "encouraging." We all know what that means...) to own guns. While governors, such as New York's, are going off the deep end on the other side of the spectrum. If we adopt Obama's suggestions then that will put at ease those putting pressure on governors and help eliminate the draconian measures that many state and civic leaders are considering right now.

The sooner we get over this ridiculous idea that "local" or "state" government is "gooder", the better!

How many states would still be segregating schools had the feds not stepped in? How many states would still be outlawing same race marriages? How many states have ridiculous laws (such as our alcoholic laws here in Utah)? Get rid of this nonsense, PLEASE!

Gun control, health care, education, etc, is dragging our society down because we have 50 different voices all trying to drown each other out.

How often do we excuse our racism, sexism, intellectual laziness for "states rights?" How many bills and restrictions have been rammed down our throats after a legislator receives a phone call from "a brother" in a certain down town office building? How many more times do we need to see horrible "message bills" based on unfounded opinion (like the banning of sex edu) from Gayle Ruzicka?

I say adopt Obama's gun regulation and move on. Then we won't have to hear any more about it.

State governments invite radicalism. They are breeding grounds for it. A church (as we see a lot here in Utah) or ultra-conservative group (such as the Eagle Forum) has (too much) influence. As we see nationally, not one church or sect dominates. The closest thing would be the banks or industrial complex, both of which need to be addressed too.

Obama's propositions are the most moderate and IMO, the best solutions I've seen. All the other solutions either do nothing (kick the can down the road seems to be the NRA's mantra. Or just make more guns available) while others on the other side, (such as NY) seem to go a bit too far.
 
Look folks. How many times are you going to use beer to defend your safety. . . . oh, once in a while depending on circumstances. . . .

same thing with sex, straight or otherwise.

guns are useful sometimes when nobody else is going to, or perhaps even on site, to prevent bodily harm, stop theft of life's essentials, or preserve your life itself.

Anyone who uses a gun to initiate aggression against others needs to clearly understand they are going to either be killed on the spot or hauled away when apprehended to a long long stay in the slammer. Our courts have failed us by letting so many perps believe they can accomplish something against the law abiding citizenry with the use of guns. Enforcing law against such crimes is all the law actually consistent with the Second Amendment. Regulating guns is as useless as regulating kitchen knives.



I'd like to see government having no business in your recreation, or a lot of other things, and having little or no money or power so it would generally be more worthwhile and a better use of anyone's time to simply work for a living, rather than milk the government somehow. Less government would prevent a whole lot of injustice and crime.
 
Then again, what can you expect from the GOP? They haven't done a damn thing since having their asses handed to them in 08. Their strategy seems to be, "take the opposite side of Obama and eventually he'll lose favor with the people." Boy, that sure has worked out well.......
 
The Thriller said:
Couldn't have found a better reason to approve Obama's solution myself! Many governments are feeling the pressure to address this guns issues. Some (Spring City) are "encouraging" (they eliminated the word "requirement" and substituted it for "encouraging." We all know what that means...) to own guns. While governors, such as New York's, are going off the deep end on the other side of the spectrum. If we adopt Obama's suggestions then that will put at ease those putting pressure on governors and help eliminate the draconian measures that many state and civic leaders are considering right now.

The sooner we get over this ridiculous idea that "local" or "state" government is "gooder", the better!

How many states would still be segregating schools had the feds not stepped in? How many states would still be outlawing same race marriages? How many states have ridiculous laws (such as our alcoholic laws here in Utah)? Get rid of this nonsense, PLEASE!

Gun control, health care, education, etc, is dragging our society down because we have 50 different voices all trying to drown each other out.

How often do we excuse our racism, sexism, intellectual laziness for "states rights?" How many bills and restrictions have been rammed down our throats after a legislator receives a phone call from "a brother" in a certain down town office building? How many more times do we need to see horrible "message bills" based on unfounded opinion (like the banning of sex edu) from Gayle Ruzicka?

I say adopt Obama's gun regulation and move on. Then we won't have to hear any more about it.

State governments invite radicalism. They are breeding grounds for it. A church (as we see a lot here in Utah) or ultra-conservative group (such as the Eagle Forum) has (too much) influence. As we see nationally, not one church or sect dominates. The closest thing would be the banks or industrial complex, both of which need to be addressed too.

Obama's propositions are the most moderate and IMO, the best solutions I've seen. All the other solutions either do nothing (kick the can down the road seems to be the NRA's mantra. Or just make more guns available) while others on the other side, (such as NY) seem to go a bit too far.
Click to expand...

Holy ****. Using this mantra lets just take the ability to vote away. Those guys in washington know what's best for everybody else anyway. Lets just become Rome. Nobody question the leaders just do what they say when they say and get it over with.

This is the most ignorant post I've read on here in a long time.
 
BabyPeterzz said:
Dude, so you're telling me that you have a choice between a machine gun and a flame thrower, and you would choose the machine gun???

Did you ever play Contra???
Click to expand...

They have those? I play this on Wii with my five year old and haven't ran into one up yet. What round bro? We're going on a button smash weekend spree.
 
The Thriller said:
In Utah, it is easier to obtain a semi-auto and endless amounts of ammo than it is to get a beer.

This shouldn't be.

I welcome opposing arguments to this.
Click to expand...

guns have a logical: use self defense, but it also kills innocent people.

alcohol has no use logical use, but it also kills inocent people.
i would rather give a well raised 16 year old a gun then a case of beer
 
It comes down to my friendly dissenters (Salty, Stoked) being way more concerned with overreacting than I.

No I'm just kidding. I can honestly understand what you're saying. I just disagree with the scope of the issues. You think it's a massive cause, and ill continue to live my life not too worried about it. But I'm glad people out there give a damn.

Not sarcastic.
 
Sneakers said:
It comes down to my friendly dissenters (Salty, Stoked) being way more concerned with overreacting than I.

No I'm just kidding. I can honestly understand what you're saying. I just disagree with the scope of the issues. You think it's a massive cause, and ill continue to live my life not too worried about it. But I'm glad people out there give a damn.

Not sarcastic.
Click to expand...


I understand guns scare some people.

Do you ever consider taking action against those who chronically perpetuate gun violence instead of those who stop it?
 
franklin said:
I understand guns scare some people.

Do you ever consider taking action against those who chronically perpetuate gun violence instead of those who stop it?
Click to expand...

I guess it's just hard to see which side those who support guns fall on these days.

I'd be all for a set of responsible gun rangers, who get it and know their ****. But I'm afraid most people are in it for the fetish, or something that is mutated off of a gun fetish.

Which I think is what someone on the other side would say, 'I wouldn't have a problem with violent media if I knew the consumers of the media weren't mentally ****ed up.'

So I see both sides.

I think (hope) everyone just wants to be safe. But there's so many people... it's hard
 
I like The Thriller. Because he realizes just because you've figured out how to reference a historical buzz word doesn't prove that you are, therefore. a completely analogous instance to that buzz word. Or even close.
 
Stoked said:
That is pure opinion.

A couple guys in hate insignia, with weapons, yes not as deadly as a rifle, shouting slurs v. a guy with a rifle on his back not doing anything to anyone? Yea I am more threatened by the guys using slurs, in hate insignia holding weapons.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt of that.
 
Stoked said:
Well the goal of someone limiting my access to firearms is to infringe on my rights.
Click to expand...

What does another person gain merely by "infringing on your rights"? I agree that infringing on rights is often a side-effect of various goals, but it is seldom a goal in and of itself. To think that it is a goal boarders on paranoia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top