Parkland Shooting

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

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.

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.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by mredskins

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.

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.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

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

[Giantone]

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

https://news.yahoo.com/states-rush-t...162304769.html


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.


BULLSHIT! You just know the answer from the NRA lovers is more guns!

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

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.

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

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

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.

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.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by Giantone

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

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.

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.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by mredskins

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.

I agree with you and used an atomic bomb as an example and while it was spun it was never answered.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Giantone

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


https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-new...ople-under-18/

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.

^yep

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

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by Giantone

I agree with you and used an atomic bomb as an example and while it was spun it was never answered.

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.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by MTK

How about we start with something along these lines?

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.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

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.

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

[MTK]

Originally Posted by mredskins

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

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.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by MTK

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.

Makes perfect sense, thank you

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by mredskins

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.

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.