• 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

birdman said:
FYI, "You seem pretty intelligent to" should be "too".

In my view the all it will achieve is probably grand standing, and raising money to get reelected, just like the senate's fake Filibuster last week. However, the stated point of the sit in protest is to have a debate and a vote on a bill in congress for some sort of gun control, but the Republicans walked out refusing to hold a vote...so you see, tell the House Dems to do their jobs is ironic. You are correct that the Dems controlled congress for two years but that was before Aurora, Newtown, San Bernardino, Orlando, Charleston, etc. Many of us were calling for stricter gun control as far back as the 90's after Colin Ferguson shot 25 people on the Long Island Rail Road (in my home town), but apparently it took quite a bit longer for Congressional Democrats to hear the message. Surely the House Dems know this won't accomplish anything even if they do get a vote on the house floor and so many are joining to protest probably just to get press and benefit their campaigns, but this is same thing as holding 100's of votes to repeal ObamaCare in the last few years or the GOP House Floor sit in over an energy bill in 2008. So, calling out the Dems for not doing their jobs here is a bit of a funny angle to take.
Click to expand...

FYI, you don't need a definite article in your first sentence.

And I haven't checked my calendar recently, but I'm pretty sure 2010 was after 1999 (Columbine), 2007 (Blacksburg), 2009 (Binghamton), and even later in 2009 (Fort Hood). I'll double check.

I don't recall the pub sit-in you refer to, but, yes, this is the same as any other congressional sit in. Procedural rules are part of the job, so they should all learn to deal with the party in power invoking them. I recall hearing someone say recently something like "elections have consequences."
 
2u7taba.jpg
 
ImTheCaptain said:
was the gunman in a gun-free zone?

47640864.jpg
Click to expand...

The victim was, who I think is the stakeholder under that plan.

Would you have preferred I said "While a Civil Rights leader sat on the floor doing nothing to stop it?" I don't think so, Tim. I'm trying to be respectful here, ITC. Don't make this so hard.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
meh, just another minority person killed by a white guy exercising his rights
Click to expand...

I like and respect guns and hunting, but I'm not a "gun person." I don't think there is a civilian use for the AR-15. I DO think there is a valid purpose for home defense weapons like handguns (yes, even "semi-automatic" weapons, with a reasonable magazine capacity) and shotguns (ditto).

I'm on board with restricting the type and capacities of weapons that are out there, having them registered (and taxed ad valorem after the second in a household).

The gunphobes and the gunnuts appear to be in a race to the idiocy bottom. I'm actually curious to see what the candidates do with this issue.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I like and respect guns and hunting, but I'm not a "gun person." I don't think there is a civilian use for the AR-15. I DO think there is a valid purpose for home defense weapons like handguns (yes, even "semi-automatic" weapons, with a reasonable magazine capacity) and shotguns (ditto).

I'm on board with restricting the type and capacities of weapons that are out there, having them registered (and taxed ad valorem after the second in a household).

The gunphobes and the gunnuts appear to be in a race to the idiocy bottom. I'm actually curious to see what the candidates do with this issue.
Click to expand...

Well, I think I agree with just about all of this, though I would be OK with a ban on semiautomatic weapons.

raw
 
ImTheCaptain said:
Well, I think I agree with just about all of this, though I would be OK with a ban on semiautomatic weapons.
Click to expand...

Low capacity semi-auto makes sense to me as a personal protection feature, especially because even after we ban them, the bad guys have a century's worth of black market high capacity weapons in the market.
 
Hand gun proliferation directly leads to bad guys having guns. Southerners and Midwesterners living in the sparsely populated sticks don't need handguns for home protection. They like them, they enjoy them, they make them feel safe and secure, warm and snuggly at night, but mathematically they don't need them.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Hand gun proliferation directly leads to bad guys having guns. Southerners and Midwesterners living in the sparsely populated sticks don't need handguns for home protection. They like them, they enjoy them, they make them feel safe and secure, warm and snuggly at night, but mathematically they don't need them.

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

 
Junebug said:
FYI, you don't need a definite article in your first sentence.

And I haven't checked my calendar recently, but I'm pretty sure 2010 was after 1999 (Columbine), 2007 (Blacksburg), 2009 (Binghamton), and even later in 2009 (Fort Hood). I'll double check.

I don't recall the pub sit-in you refer to, but, yes, this is the same as any other congressional sit in. Procedural rules are part of the job, so they should all learn to deal with the party in power invoking them. I recall hearing someone say recently something like "elections have consequences."
Click to expand...

Thanks, awesomely ironic that I had a typo in my post pointing out your typo. I assume, based on your original post, that you love irony too.

GOP 2008 sit in: http://heavy.com/news/2016/06/when-...-congress-house-democrats-republicans-record/

"I'm pretty sure 2010 was after 1999 (Columbine), 2007 (Blacksburg), 2009 (Binghamton), and even later in 2009 (Fort Hood)." -- Absolutely right, like I said there have been high profile incidents and calls for stricter control for decades and it took way too long for the Democratic party to get the message that they should do something about it. Unfortunately they waited util they have no power so that all they can do now is have temper tantrums on the house floor while the Pubs, turn off the camera's close the door and pretend it's not happening. However, it'll be pretty hard to convince me that the Dems are the ones currently not doing their jobs when GOP decided to go to recess for July 4th, 13 days before actual July 4th, just so they can avoid going on record against gun control.
 
Good lord, our government is a freaking joke. None of those people represent my views. The best I can tell, every one of them has one job and one job only - and that is to do whatever it takes to keep their job.
 
It's unimanginable to me that anyone could oppose universal background checks on every sale, gift or transfer of ownership of guns, rifles, etc. There's no rational reason to give internet sellers, gun show participants and private sellers such an advantage over licensed dealers. Nor is it fair to the public that sales can easily and legally be made to felons, spousal abusers, mentally ill and even terrorists without any checking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top