• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

ban the fucking guns

there's a difference between having a religious extremism problem and a "Muslim problem"
 
RJKarl said:
On another thread I made these common sense ideas for gun laws. How many agree:

Background checks must be made on every sale, gift or transfer of ownership of a gun, rifle or other firearm
This particular incident failed at this point. How does a guy with 3 FBI interviews related to terrorism not at least get a second look at the point of sale? 90% of folks come of clean initially and are ok, but this guy somehow didn't? Not enough focus is being placed at the point of sale in this case.

Registering of every gun
Nonstarter, plus no relevance as a crime-fighting tool.

Banning all clips, magazines or other devices that have a capacity of 12 (could be 15) rounds
A cosmetic issue, but I have said before that a 100 round drum really doesn't serve much of a purpose. I would put the cutoff at 15, personally.

When buying a gun, you must take a safety course
If the intent is to stave off criminality, this does nothing. If the intent is to teach dumb people to be smart with guns, I question its effectiveness. No.

A maximum number of guns purchase law with exceptions for licensed security companies and antiques
To what exactly? One at a time? One a month?

Any semi-automatic weapons must be manufactured with barriers to keep them from becoming refit to become fully automatic
That wasn't an issue here, and to my knowledge hasn't been an issue with any of the mass shootings, except maybe the one in France, and that I'm not sure about. Fully automatic weapons are not a problem and are already regulated.

Allowing the sale of smart guns
Allowing is fine. Mandating is not. And again, not an issue here.

Banning military style weapons (why does a citizen need a 50mm sniper rifle?)
50 cal, not 50 mm. And since it is the only weapon you specify here as needing banning, I'll just say I have no problem with it being added to the list of regulated firearms. But again, not a problem in this case.

Registering ammo purchases as well as products to make ammo.
No. Ridiculously onerous to both stores and any kind of government registry and serves no legitimate purpose.
Click to expand...

...
 
Last edited:
DG3 said:
That's why I blamed extremist ideology. Did your reading glasses break this morning?
Click to expand...
You blamed *their extremist ideology. Then you said some nonsense about not excusing terrorism. Point is, this event wasn't an act of war, and is not an excuse for you 'murican red asses to send troops abroad to die.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 
jhmd2000 said:
For the ban-guns crowd, what changed in our culture since 1789 that has the caused the fear of not-having-guns (1789) to be overtaken by the fear of having guns (2016)? I am trying to figure out for myself whether---at a practical level--- we tackle the "mass" first (in terms of stifling access to technology) or the "shootings" part (where to even begin)?
Click to expand...

Umm basically everything? Our culture now looks pretty much nothing like our culture in 1789. I don't have time to write the novel that it would take to make a complete explanation, but here's the most obvious:

In 1789, we had just escaped from 100+ years of rule by an oppressive British government. There was naturally a distrust of government power, people didn't want standing armies, so in lieu of that, they relied on individual gun owners that could be called upon to form a militia if there was a need for self-defense.

Now, we've lasted almost 250 years without ever needing gun owners to stand up against government overreach because our government is not oppressive and we have a massive standing army so there's no need for militias.

The real question is how can anybody say that our "culture" is similar enough to the culture in 1789 so as to make it smart to abide by arcane rules suited to that time period (and that's if you can even say that the Founders would have wanted the situation we have today, which is far from clear).
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
You blamed *their extremist ideology. Then you said some nonsense about not excusing terrorism. Point is, this event wasn't an act of war, and is not an excuse for you 'murican red asses to send troops abroad to die.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

He was clearly influenced by the ideology of ISIS, hence him claiming as such. Idk what your act of war bullshit is about. I just responded to something fucking stupid you said.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Yes, let's ban guns and be more like France, because it worked well for them.
Click to expand...

uhh...

Graph-1.png
 
MysteryMen said:
Umm basically everything? Our culture now looks pretty much nothing like our culture in 1789. I don't have time to write the novel that it would take to make a complete explanation, but here's the most obvious:

In 1789, we had just escaped from 100+ years of rule by an oppressive British government. There was naturally a distrust of government power, people didn't want standing armies, so in lieu of that, they relied on individual gun owners that could be called upon to form a militia if there was a need for self-defense.

Now, we've lasted almost 250 years without ever needing gun owners to stand up against government overreach because our government is not oppressive and we have a massive standing army so there's no need for militias.

The real question is how can anybody say that our "culture" is similar enough to the culture in 1789 so as to make it smart to abide by arcane rules suited to that time period (and that's if you can even say that the Founders would have wanted the situation we have today, which is far from clear).
Click to expand...

Slow down, champ. The question is a jumping off point, not a refutation. No one is arguing that nothing has changed since 1789. Deep breaths, and point by point, deal?

1. 1789: "There was naturally a distrust of government power,...." I'm willing to argue that all but the highest office in the land (including governor's offices in Ohio, Michigan and New Jersey) might be a clue that what "was", still "is" in 2016.

2. Guns are amoral. They don't distinguish between public and private overreach. The old man in South Chicago who can't keep his deadbolt from getting kicked in by junkies isn't worried about being forced to quarter redcoats in his Chiraq abode. Your limitation of a gun's utility to defense from the government might not solve his problem.

3. Nobody is saying that. Read the thread.
 
DG3 said:
He was clearly influenced by the ideology of ISIS, hence him claiming as such. Idk what your act of war bullshit is about. I just responded to something fucking stupid you said.
Click to expand...
Well I think what you said was fucking stupid, so I guess we're at an impasse because we both think what the other is saying is fucking stupid. Why don't we just leave it at that?

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 
jhmd2000 said:
Slow down, champ. The question is a jumping off point, not a refutation. No one is arguing that nothing has changed since 1789. Deep breaths, and point by point, deal?

1. 1789: "There was naturally a distrust of government power,...." I'm willing to argue that all but the highest office in the land (including governor's offices in Ohio, Michigan and New Jersey) might be a clue that what "was", still "is" in 2016.

2. Guns are amoral. They don't distinguish between public and private overreach. The old man in South Chicago who can't keep his deadbolt from getting kicked in by junkies isn't worried about being forced to quarter redcoats in his Chiraq abode. Your limitation of a gun's utility to defense from the government might not solve his problem.

3. Nobody is saying that. Read the thread.
Click to expand...

maybe you missed this question:

ImTheCaptain said:
Since then revolution, has a citizen ever used a gun to stand up against the Federal government's policies and/or actors and was subsequently vindicated?
Click to expand...
 
Gun control needs to be accompanied with the demilitarization of the police.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
maybe you missed this question:
Click to expand...

You missed my response: we have a 500+ thread on government overreach. The government does bad stuff all of the time, but the original reason we stated we needed guns doesn't invalidate the preexisting reasons that were too obvious to recite. The Constitution doesn't contain an enumerated right to food or water, because people didn't need to be reminded that those might be important. Paging Doctor Maslow...
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Well I think what you said was fucking stupid, so I guess we're at an impasse because we both think what the other is saying is fucking stupid. Why don't we just leave it at that?

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The difference is that I stated fact and your push the "RrrRRrrrRR NOT ISIS" bullshit. It wasn't an act of war. He was clearly a whacked out lone wolf. ISIS didn't tell him to do it, but they clearly accomplished their mission of indoctrinating an American national with their ideologies. Then he killed 50 innocent people. He didn't just wake up and hate the gay population.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top