Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=Giantone;1317046]You honestly don't understand the difference between an abortion, a medical procedure and a nut job with a assault gun walking into a school and blowing away kids and Teachers?[/quote]

I understand the difference, I also understand the end results.

a few differences:
A medical procedure is entirely preventable through appropriate laws and practices.

An evil person with evil intent is far harder to prevent regardless of the laws in place.
___
An abortion, not due to medical necessity/rape/incest, is highly preventable by people taking responsibility for their actions, and using appropriate protection

A nut job with no previous history is not highly preventable but could be better perceived if our mental health system were not so poorly funded.

___

The world would be a better place if killing innocents through any means was treated as equal evils.

Life is precious, what we do to protect life says a lot about us and our society, and right now our society fails [B][U][I]both[/I][/U][/B] on abortions and guns.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=sdskinsfan2001;1317047]I'm all for discussing how to keep people that have previously committed gun crimes and/or are evil and/or have mental health issues from getting guns. We also need to find, charge, and try people that make terroristic threats. Posting about shooting up a school is way worse to me than lots of things people go to jail for in this country. Those people who are found guilty either need to be sent to prison or a mandatory mental health facility.

I'm OK with raising the age to own guns to 21 as well. We have rights, but we also don't just give every right to every person at any age. There is a certain level of growth and maturity required for lots of things we do in America.

What I'm not OK with on any level, is banning any law abiding citizen of age from owning any type weapon they want. That is not right and un-American. So what if I don't "need" a semi-automatic gun. If I want one, that's my prerogative as an American under the constitution.[/quote]

I agree with all of this.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=sdskinsfan2001;1317047]I'm all for discussing how to keep people that have previously committed gun crimes and/or are evil and/or have mental health issues from getting guns. We also need to find, charge, and try people that make terroristic threats. Posting about shooting up a school is way worse to me than lots of things people go to jail for in this country. Those people who are found guilty either need to be sent to prison or a mandatory mental health facility.

I'm OK with raising the age to own guns to 21 as well. We have rights, but we also don't just give every right to every person at any age. There is a certain level of growth and maturity required for lots of things we do in America.

What I'm not OK with on any level, is banning any law abiding citizen of age from owning any type weapon they want. That is not right and un-American. So what if I don't "need" a semi-automatic gun. If I want one, that's my prerogative as an American under the constitution.[/quote]
No it's not , I understand the pro gun NRA backers claim it is but at no point does the second Amendment say you have a God given right as an American to own a assault weapon.

U.S. Constitution - Second Amendment | Library of Congresshttps://constitution.congress.gov › amendment-2

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


By your definition every American has the right to own an Atomic Bomb if they want.

The Founder Fathers didn't recognize Women or Blacks so does the 2nd amendment include them, remember all they were talking about were rights of white property owning males ?At the time the Constitution was written the US Armed Forces as they do today ,so much for your Militia.


Your attitude assumes the Framers of the Constitution were always right but we know they weren't and we correct their wrongs, their mistakes. This has to be changed.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1317049]I understand the difference, I also understand the end results.

a few differences:
A medical procedure is entirely preventable through appropriate laws and practices.

An evil person with evil intent is far harder to prevent regardless of the laws in place.
___
An abortion, not due to medical necessity/rape/incest, is highly preventable by people taking responsibility for their actions, and using appropriate protection

A nut job with no previous history is not highly preventable but could be better perceived if our mental health system were not so poorly funded.

___

The world would be a better place if killing innocents through any means was treated as equal evils.

Life is precious, what we do to protect life says a lot about us and our society, and right now our society fails [B][U][I]both[/I][/U][/B] on abortions and guns.[/quote]
In your opinion. The two are completely different things and different discussions and should be treated as such.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=Giantone;1317051]No it's not , I understand the pro gun NRA backers claim it is but at no point does the second Amendment say you have a God given right as an American to own a assault weapon.

U.S. Constitution - Second Amendment | Library of Congresshttps://constitution.congress.gov › amendment-2

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

By your definition every American has the right to own an Atomic Bomb if they want.

The Founder Fathers didn't recognize Women or Blacks so does the 2nd amendment include them, remember all they were talking about were rights of white property owning males ?At the time the Constitution was written the US Armed Forces as they do today ,so much for your Militia.

Your attitude assumes the Framers of the Constitution were always right but we know they weren't and we correct their wrongs, their mistakes. This has to be changed.[/quote]

No it's not , I understand the pro gun NRA backers claim it is but at no point does the second Amendment say you have a God given right as an American to own a assault weapon.

[I]- You can twist "shall not be infringed" all you want to, but it doesn't change what it says. Shall not be infringed is as clear as day as to what it means. It means it shall not be infringed. So it literally says exactly what you're saying it doesn't.[/I]

U.S. Constitution - Second Amendment | Library of Congresshttps://constitution.congress.gov › amendment-2

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

By your definition every American has the right to own an Atomic Bomb if they want.

[I]- At a cost of around 28 million each (at minimum), I don't think this is a legitimate issue. But way to use the most ridiculous extreme example possible.[/I]

The Founder Fathers didn't recognize Women or Blacks so does the 2nd amendment include them, remember all they were talking about were rights of white property owning males? At the time the Constitution was written the US Armed Forces as they do today ,so much for your Militia.

[I]- Is this a serious question? Again it says "the right of the people". It doesn't say the right of white men.[/I]

Your attitude assumes the Framers of the Constitution were always right but we know they weren't and we correct their wrongs, their mistakes. This has to be changed.

[I]- Your attitide assumes they were always wrong and must be corrected. Which they actually put a process in place for anyways.[/I]

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=sdskinsfan2001;1317053]No it's not , I understand the pro gun NRA backers claim it is but at no point does the second Amendment say you have a God given right as an American to own a assault weapon.

[I]- You can twist "shall not be infringed" all you want to, but it doesn't change what it says. Shall not be infringed is as clear as day as to what it means. It means it shall not be infringed. So it literally says exactly what you're saying it doesn't.[/I]

U.S. Constitution - Second Amendment | Library of Congresshttps://constitution.congress.gov › amendment-2

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

By your definition every American has the right to own an Atomic Bomb if they want.

[I]- At a cost of around 28 million each (at minimum), I don't think this is a legitimate issue. But way to use the most ridiculous extreme example possible.[/I]

The Founder Fathers didn't recognize Women or Blacks so does the 2nd amendment include them, remember all they were talking about were rights of white property owning males? At the time the Constitution was written the US Armed Forces as they do today ,so much for your Militia.

[I]- Is this a serious question? Again it says "the right of the people". It doesn't say the right of white men.[/I]

Your attitude assumes the Framers of the Constitution were always right but we know they weren't and we correct their wrongs, their mistakes. This has to be changed.

[I]- Your attitide assumes they were always wrong and must be corrected. Which they actually put a process in place for anyways.[/I][/quote]

1) Might be a ridiculous example but it makes my point and you can't refute it.
2)You're a smarter person then to try and pull of this "of the people" ,these white planation Owners never mentioned women or blacks in the constitution so you're telling me that even back then all blacks had the right to own guns, women had that right too? If true why did Lincoln have to stop slavery?
3)The Framers of the Constitution talked about what they knew and set it up to grow with the Country as it grew, they weren't wrong it's a living thing and they set it up to be changed as the Country did for the future not a fucking political football for gun nuts to hide behind.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1317050]I agree with all of this.[/quote]

sorry to hear this.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=Giantone;1317059]1) Might be a ridiculous example but it makes my point and you can't refute it.
2)You're a smarter person then to try and pull of this "of the people" ,these white planation Owners never mentioned women or blacks in the constitution so you're telling me that even back then all blacks had the right to own guns, women had that right too? If true why did Lincoln have to stop slavery?
3)The Framers of the Constitution talked about what they knew and set it up to grow with the Country as it grew, they weren't wrong it's a living thing and they set it up to be changed as the Country did for the future not a fucking political football for gun nuts to hide behind.[/quote]

There is nothing to refute. You can't buy a nuclear bomb anywhere. And 99.99% of all Americans couldn't afford one even if they wanted to. This doesn't offer anything to a real conversation about gun laws in our country.

Again, you can twist the words all you want to fit your narrative. But it says what it says. And this is also irrelevant to having a real conversation about gun laws in our country. Obviously black, brown, neon green, purple, etc. Americans have the same rights to buy a gun as any white person. Same with women. No one I have ever heard argue for our 2nd amendment rights has ever mentioned that this right is only for white mean.

If you want to get rid of guns, get the Constitution amended. That is the process. If you can't do that, then you have to find other solutions.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=sdskinsfan2001;1317061]There is nothing to refute. You can't buy a nuclear bomb anywhere. And 99.99% of all Americans couldn't afford one even if they wanted to. This doesn't offer anything to a real conversation about gun laws in our country.

Again, you can twist the words all you want to fit your narrative. But it says what it says. And this is also irrelevant to having a real conversation about gun laws in our country. Obviously black, brown, neon green, purple, etc. Americans have the same rights to buy a gun as any white person. Same with women. No one I have ever heard argue for our 2nd amendment rights has ever mentioned that this right is only for white mean.

If you want to get rid of guns, get the Constitution amended. That is the process. If you can't do that, then you have to find other solutions.[/quote]

Twist words????? Look at your own post's for twisted words . My narrative is the truth and that bothers you but it's the truth. Now those American have rights to buy guns but when the Constitution was written they had no rights, none for years under the very Constitution you scream up holds your rights. they did not, not twisting shit! The NRA will not allow the Constitution to be amended they will call for a civil war and people like you and others will push it no matter how many children die at schools. As for other solutions the republican party NRA will not allow it.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=Giantone;1317062]Twist words????? Look at your own post's for twisted words . My narrative is the truth and that bothers you but it's the truth. Now those American have rights to buy guns but when the Constitution was written they had no rights, none for years under the very Constitution you scream up holds your rights. they did not, not twisting shit! The NRA will not allow the Constitution to be amended they will call for a civil war and people like you and others will push it no matter how many children die at schools. As for other solutions the republican party NRA will not allow it.[/quote]

I don't get what your truth is. You are disregarding or changing the meaning of the 2nd amendment. I have the 2nd amendment as written on my side. You have interpreting the words to fit your narrative on your side.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right [B]of the[/B] [B]people[/B] to keep and [B]bear Arms[/B], [B]shall not be infringed[/B]."

Of the people: It doesn't say of certain people. It says people. Anything you add, change, or disregard is twisting the words.

Bear Arms: It doesn't say bear certain arms that democrats and fake republicans approve of. Anything you add, change, or disregard is twisting the words.

Shall not be infringed: It means it shall not be infringed. Anything you add, change, or disregard is twisting the words.

You act like you're more reasonable than people that support the 2nd amendment. You don't want debate, you want complete capitulation to the democrats gun laws.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=Giantone;1317042]chico stop with all your BS you're as bad as the rest of the GOP assholes. There was no defund the Police situation in this shooting or in Buffalo, comparing these incidents to a rise in crime in the cities is fucking stupid. To blame the Dems because the GOP won't pass gun laws shows how ignorant and stupid you are.[/quote]

Let me fact check you again, defund the police movement…an established failure…removed police and security from schools across the country:

[url]https://www.edweek.org/leadership/defunded-removed-and-put-in-check-school-police-a-year-after-george-floyd/2021/06[/url]

[url]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-24/minneapolis-denver-and-oakland-defund-school-police[/url]

To blame democrats polices in an increase in violence across the country especially in cities with the highest increases is absolutely backed by the data. They are responsible as they run these shithole cities sometimes 30-60 years straight. They are refusing to prosecute gun crime, which is a fact backed by the data…if you refuse to prosecute gun charges, where is the logic in in additional measures…when the measures don’t stop it in the shitholes they run?

Let me remind you also again, democrats are in charge of both houses of congress and the presidency.

To compare the mass shooting in Buffalo and Texas to violence across the country is also viable. As you and other leftist do, you only pay attention to mass shootings when it’s politically comfortable: here again is the mass shooting archive, get familiar with the offenders and victims as well as the places where these occur:

[url]https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/mass-shooting[/url]

Or simply ignore it as it doesn’t fit your narrative.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=Chico23231;1317065]Let me fact check you again, defund the police movement….[/quote]

[IMG]https://i.pinimg.com/236x/e4/e9/ed/e4e9ed56f3275a043ef555b3e7db3922.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=Chico23231;1317065]Let me fact check you again, defund the police movement…an established failure…removed police and security from schools across the country:

[url]https://www.edweek.org/leadership/defunded-removed-and-put-in-check-school-police-a-year-after-george-floyd/2021/06[/url]

[url]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-24/minneapolis-denver-and-oakland-defund-school-police[/url]

To blame democrats polices in an increase in violence across the country especially in cities with the highest increases is absolutely backed by the data. They are responsible as they run these shithole cities sometimes 30-60 years straight. They are refusing to prosecute gun crime, which is a fact backed by the data…if you refuse to prosecute gun charges, where is the logic in in additional measures…when the measures don’t stop it in the shitholes they run?

Let me remind you also again, democrats are in charge of both houses of congress and the presidency.

To compare the mass shooting in Buffalo and Texas to violence across the country is also viable. As you and other leftist do, you only pay attention to mass shootings when it’s politically comfortable: here again is the mass shooting archive, get familiar with the offenders and victims as well as the places where these occur:

[url]https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/mass-shooting[/url]

Or simply ignore it as it doesn’t fit your narrative.[/quote]

STFU,


[IMG]https://static.attn.com/sites/default/files/10387018_773089182726543_8370823349900418606_o.jpg?auto=format&crop=faces&fit=crop&q=60&w=736&ixlib=js-1.1.0[/IMG]

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

Reading this back and forth is like listening to an argument between a Kindergartner and his teacher. One side makes perfect sense backed by facts and analysis, while the other side is sticking his tongue out going nanny nanny boo boo.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[URL="https://www.complex.com/life/texas-artist-custom-caskets-uvalde-school-shooting-victims"]Texas Artist Made 19 Custom Caskets for Uvalde Shooting Victims[/URL]

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

How about we start with something along these lines?

[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FUHf9E1XEAIo4lF?format=jpg&name=small[/IMG]

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

^^^^^

I am absolutely fine with reasonable requirements to obtain a gun. There would need to be an appeals process in place though, for anyone denied the right to own a gun based on a background check.

My issue always comes down to the guns themselves. I don't trust the government to stop at AR-15 type weapons (Biden already slipped up this week talking about bullets that are used in certain handguns) even if I was Ok with those being banned (I'm not), or want the government telling me what I need or don't need. America isn't founded on the government allowing us only to have what they deem we need. We have the freedom to get what we want.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=sdskinsfan2001;1317086]^^^^^

I am absolutely fine with reasonable requirements to obtain a gun. There would need to be an appeals process in place though, for anyone denied the right to own a gun based on a background check.

My issue always comes down to the guns themselves. I don't trust the government to stop at AR-15 type weapons (Biden already slipped up this week talking about bullets that are used in certain handguns) even if I was Ok with those being banned (I'm not), [B]or want the government telling me what I need or don't need. America isn't founded on the government allowing us only to have what they deem we need. We have the freedom to get what we want.[/B][/quote]

Except when it comes to abortions right? What about drugs?

Is there any reason why an average person needs an AR-15?

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=MTK;1317087]Except when it comes to abortions right? What about drugs?

Is there any reason why an average person needs an AR-15?[/quote]

I believe that life begins at conception. We do not have a right to infringe on another person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My rights end where yours begin. So being against abortion and pro-second amendment are not conflicting beliefs imo.

I am for legalizing drugs.

If people enjoy shooting, they need a gun they like to shoot. And I don't care if they need one or not. Being an American and wanting one is good enough reason for me. If we outlawed all things we don't "need" that could be harmful, then throw out all your bacon, your burgers, your pasta, your beer, your spirits, I meant this list can go on and on.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[URL="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-action-should-be-taken-on-guns-we-asked-every-senator"]We asked every senator what action should be taken on guns. Here’s what they said[/URL]

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

I hate how these conversations always break down into bickering... at the end of the day I think we can all agree nobody wants to see mass shootings, nobody wants to see innocent people gunned down, especially children in schools. Can we just do something about it already? The majority of Americans are in favor of common sense gun reform, so why is nothing being done? It's just so frustrating.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=sdskinsfan2001;1317088]I believe that life begins at conception. We do not have a right to infringe on another person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My rights end where yours begin. So being against abortion and pro-second amendment are not conflicting beliefs imo.

I am for legalizing drugs.

If people enjoy shooting, they need a gun they like to shoot. And I don't care if they need one or not. Being an American and wanting one is good enough reason for me. [B]If we outlawed all things we don't "need" that could be harmful, then throw out all your bacon, your burgers, your pasta, your beer, your spirits, I meant this list can go on and on[/B].[/quote]

I think you are confusing harmful and deadly.

Good luck mowing down a elementary school with a cheeseburger.

Plus your harmful list are things i choose or the user chooses to harm themselves with. Unless the user is using the AR 15 to kill themselves their "harmful/deadly" "need" only harms others that didn't choose to be harmed.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=MTK;1317090]I hate how these conversations always break down into bickering... at the end of the day I think we can all agree nobody wants to see mass shootings, nobody wants to see innocent people gunned down, especially children in schools. Can we just do something about it already? The majority of Americans are in favor of common sense gun reform, so why is nothing being done? It's just so frustrating.[/quote]

Mostly because one side tries to justify by comparing to something else that has nothing to do with the issue.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=MTK;1317090]I hate how these conversations always break down into bickering... at the end of the day I think we can all agree nobody wants to see mass shootings, nobody wants to see innocent people gunned down, especially children in schools. Can we just do something about it already? The majority of Americans are in favor of common sense gun reform, so why is nothing being done? It's just so frustrating.[/quote]

This goes beyond gun control or party imo. Most politicians are in D.C. to get elected, stay elected, and get rich off of us. That means scoring points with their media supporters and staunchest voters, who aren't satisfied with anything less than 100% of what they want. I believe that most of us are willing to compromise at least somewhat. But I don't think most of us are actually represented well by our elected officials and helping out all Americans by coming together somewhere in the middle and compromising is low down on the totem pole.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=MTK;1317084]How about we start with something along these lines?

[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FUHf9E1XEAIo4lF?format=jpg&name=small[/IMG][/quote]

I'd be fine with that and I would add must be 21 to purchase.


[url]https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/report-7-in-10-school-shootings-carried-out-by-people-under-18/[/url]

CHICAGO (NewsNation) — The suspect in Tuesday’s massacre at a Uvalde, Texas, elementary school was a teenager, as most school shooters have been over the past decade.

Since 1999, seven in 10 school shootings have been carried out by people under the age of 18, when counting cases where the shooter’s age was recorded, The Washington Post reported. The median age of school shooters is 16.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=sdskinsfan2001;1317095]This goes beyond gun control or party imo. Most politicians are in D.C. to get elected, stay elected, and get rich off of us. That means scoring points with their media supporters and staunchest voters, who aren't satisfied with anything less than 100% of what they want. I believe that most of us are willing to compromise at least somewhat. But I don't think most of us are actually represented well by our elected officials and helping out all Americans by coming together somewhere in the middle and compromising is low down on the totem pole.[/quote]

Both sides owe allegiance to the Party apparatus first, and that means paying homage to the big donors (abortion - planned parenthood, guns - NRA) A lot of this came about because of Reagan's " I paid for this Mic " moment. He won that point, but the party's set about to never let it happen again. That's why debates aren't independent, why the candidates have to (mostly) be vetted against the extreme base on either side, and by the time they are seated in a position to be effective they are bought and paid for by the parties.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=mredskins;1317091]I think you are confusing harmful and deadly.

Good luck mowing down a elementary school with a cheeseburger.

Plus your harmful list are things i choose or the user chooses to harm themselves with. Unless the user is using the AR 15 to kill themselves their "harmful/deadly" "need" only harms others that didn't choose to be harmed.[/quote]

Way more people in this country die each year from obesity related illnesses than from gun deaths. I'd submit that all of those things can definitely be deadly.

A gun doesn't kill by itself. No inanimate object does. A gun by itself is neither harmful nor deadly. It just sits there until someone chooses to use it. There are somewhere between 10 to 20 million AR-15's owned in America. 99.99% of these guns never are used to kill anyone.

But, this is getting a bit of topic. I'm tapping out now, I have shared where I stand on the issue enough for the time being. I'll yield the last word to you, if you so choose to accept.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1317097]Both sides owe allegiance to the Party apparatus first, and that means paying homage to the big donors (abortion - planned parenthood, guns - NRA) A lot of this came about because of Reagan's " I paid for this Mic " moment. He won that point, but the party's set about to never let it happen again. That's why debates aren't independent, why the candidates have to (mostly) be vetted against the extreme base on either side, and by the time they are seated in a position to be effective they are bought and paid for by the parties.[/quote]

Good point on the big donors, they definitely should have been included in my post.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

And then there is this..................

[url]https://news.yahoo.com/states-rush-to-expand-gun-rights-despite-calls-for-stricter-laws-162304769.html[/url]


States rush to expand gun rights despite calls for stricter laws

WASHINGTON — Even as Democrats and some Republicans in Washington work to forge a consensus on modest gun control measures following last week’s school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, state legislatures across the country are continuing to undo existing regulations.

Monday saw a state Senate committee in Ohio debate a measure, already passed by the state House, that would make it easier for teachers to bring guns into the classroom.

“They are the good guys wanting to protect others from the bad guys. Put your trust in the good guys,” a school superintendent said in support of the bill in March, echoing the rhetoric that the National Rifle Association has used since the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., that arming teachers would make schools safer.


[B]BULLSHIT![/B] You just know the answer from the NRA lovers is more guns!

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=sdskinsfan2001;1317098]
A gun doesn't kill by itself. No inanimate object does. A gun by itself is neither harmful nor deadly. It just sits there until someone chooses to use it. There are somewhere between 10 to 20 million AR-15's owned in America. 99.99% of these guns never are used to kill anyone.[/quote]

Tell that to the parents of school children who are killed at school, I'm sure that will make it all better.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=sdskinsfan2001;1317098]Way more people in this country die each year from obesity related illnesses than from gun deaths. I'd submit that all of those things can definitely be deadly.

A gun doesn't kill by itself. No inanimate object does. A gun by itself is neither harmful nor deadly. It just sits there until someone chooses to use it. There are somewhere between 10 to 20 million AR-15's owned in America. 99.99% of these guns never are used to kill anyone.

But, this is getting a bit of topic. I'm tapping out now, I have shared where I stand on the issue enough for the time being. I'll yield the last word to you, if you so choose to accept.[/quote]

I am not against guns or cheeseburgers in the right hands.

I am just not sure why anyone would need a AR 15 other then to fight a war, you can't hunt with it, it will completely tear up the pry you are hunting.

If we can just have anything, why are we not allowed chemical weapons and/ or tanks or a fighter jet.

IMO the AR 15 falls in the too much power for the average Joe who doesn't even need it so why not eliminate it.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=Giantone;1317102]Tell that to the parents of school children who are killed at school, I'm sure that will make it all better.[/quote]

[I]A gun doesn't kill by itself. No inanimate object does. A gun by itself is neither harmful nor deadly. It just sits there until someone chooses to use it. There are somewhere between 10 to 20 million AR-15's owned in America. 99.99% of these guns never are used to kill anyone.[/I]

The same could be said about rocks. There are trillions of them just laying around until i decide to smash one over someone's head.

I will agree there is probably too many rocks in the world to banned them but we surely can ban/restrict guns if we put our minds too it.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=mredskins;1317104]I am not against guns or cheeseburgers in the right hands.

I am just not sure why anyone would need a AR 15 other then to fight a war, you can't hunt with it, it will completely tear up the pry you are hunting.

If we can just have anything, why are we not allowed chemical weapons and/ or tanks or a fighter jet.

IMO the AR 15 falls in the too much power for the average Joe who doesn't even need it so why not eliminate it.[/quote]
I agree with you and used an atomic bomb as an example and while it was spun it was never answered.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=Giantone;1317096]I'd be fine with that and I would add must be 21 to purchase.


[url]https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/report-7-in-10-school-shootings-carried-out-by-people-under-18/[/url]

CHICAGO (NewsNation) — The suspect in Tuesday’s massacre at a Uvalde, Texas, elementary school was a teenager, as most school shooters have been over the past decade.

Since 1999, seven in 10 school shootings have been carried out by people under the age of 18, when counting cases where the shooter’s age was recorded, The Washington Post reported. The median age of school shooters is 16.[/quote]

^yep

This is the best case to raise the age of owning a semi-automatic rifle to 20 or 21.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=Giantone;1317107]I agree with you and used an atomic bomb as an example and while it was spun it was never answered.[/quote]

If the argument is that if your not for banning Americans from having atomic bombs, then the government can also ban Americans from owning any weapon, including certain guns, that they deem un-needed, then I support the right to own an atomic bomb if you can buy it, store it, defend it, maintain it, and ever other "...it" that goes into having a bomb. There is your answer.

Let me know when the Atomic Bomb store opens. I wonder if Amazon will deliver those.

We should unconstitutionally ban AR-15's (or any gun) because of atomic bombs is not a valid argument imo.

Note - It would be bad ass to own a tank or a fighter jet. Alas, I don't think I'll ever have the funds or the resources to own such things.

Now I'm done lol.

[IMG]https://media2.giphy.com/media/WoQmhbWcr7LoODs8a4/giphy.gif[/IMG]

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=MTK;1317084]How about we start with something along these lines?

[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FUHf9E1XEAIo4lF?format=jpg&name=small[/IMG][/quote]

If you make folks jump through these regulations hoops then you must without question bring the hammer down on folks who circumvent this process who possess a firearm illegally with mandatory 1-2 year federal sentences per weapon.

You can’t simply puts that up there and then say to those who go against it walk under any circumstance. Any local or state DA who refuses, federal prosecutors take the charge make it a federal case and throw the book at the offenders.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=sdskinsfan2001;1317110]If the argument is that if your not for banning Americans from having atomic bombs, then the government can also ban Americans from owning any weapon, including certain guns, that they deem un-needed, then I support the right to own an atomic bomb if you can buy it, store it, defend it, maintain it, and ever other "...it" that goes into having a bomb. There is your answer.

Let me know when the Atomic Bomb store opens. I wonder if Amazon will deliver those.

We should unconstitutionally ban AR-15's (or any gun) because of atomic bombs is not a valid argument imo.

Note - It would be bad ass to own a tank or a fighter jet. Alas, I don't think I'll ever have the funds or the resources to own such things.

Now I'm done lol.

[IMG]https://media2.giphy.com/media/WoQmhbWcr7LoODs8a4/giphy.gif[/IMG][/quote]

So why own a AR 15 i am looking for a valid reason?

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=mredskins;1317113]So why own a AR 15 i am looking for a valid reason?[/quote]

Because we're America and we can do what we want.

Unless we're talking about abortion of course, then it's a different ball game.

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=MTK;1317114]Because we're America and we can do what we want.

Unless we're talking about abortion of course, then it's a different ball game.[/quote]

Makes perfect sense, thank you

Re: Parkland Shooting
 

[quote=mredskins;1317104]I am not against guns or cheeseburgers in the right hands.

[B]I am just not sure why anyone would need a AR 15 other then to fight a war, you can't hunt with it, it will completely tear up the pry you are hunting.[/B]

If we can just have anything, why are we not allowed chemical weapons and/ or tanks or a fighter jet.

IMO the AR 15 falls in the too much power for the average Joe who doesn't even need it so why not eliminate it.[/quote]

Nope. They are perfectly fine for hunting. They are no more powerful than other semiautomatic hunting rifles with the same caliber, and even less powerful than say a 30.06 or .300 which are commonly used to hunt big game.