black dog
Free America
I think he was smokin a high caliber fatty last night..
So...gun ban
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
I think he was smokin a high caliber fatty last night..
Do you really want only police and military to have high bang weapons? Do you honestly trust them that much? Because you have not indicated that in the past.
And that's a real question because I'm genuinely interested in your take.
So where would you make the "high caliber" cut off? .44? Anything over 9mm?
And what would you do with all the semi-automatic handguns that are out there now? Force people to turn them in? How would that be enforced? Keep in mind that's probably what most people have. I don't have any stats on that, but whenever I've gone to the range that's what almost everyone is shooting with and everyone I know who owns guns has at least one.
Also, let's say Congress does pass a law that says gun manufacturers are held liable when someone uses their product to commit murder. Never mind that that opens up an enormous can of worms; Congress has already proven it can do whatever it wants. So that law is passed, what do you think the effect will be? How will gun manufacturers respond? How will homicidal maniacs respond?
I personally would have no problem with cops coming in to check if my guns are secured. But I'm not a criminal, either. So what happens with the Baltimore drug gangs? Will they allow police to come in and check their weapons? Since the guns are most likely illegal and unregistered anyway, how would the cops know to check? And wouldn't they just hide the guns?
Again, I am not interested in arguing with you, just trying to see your side of the issue. But I need you to think realistically about what kind of people are the problem and realistically how they would respond to your plan.
BOP
Well-Known Member
Are you sure you're in the right country?
BOP
Well-Known Member
You know what we have in this country that those countries do not have? A Bill of Rights. How about this: you move to Australia or any place in Europe where you'd be happier with how things are run.
Using the wrong character in a word is a typo. Using the wrong word is ignorance.
But let's continue with your direction of "high capacity"… 30 rounds is not high capacity. It's actually standard capacity. Shorter magazines were made to comply with hunting laws.
you seem to forget again, or just ignore, these things have been around in many forms for generations. The AR15 you are so terrified of has been around since the 50s. There are others that go back to the 19th century. Semi automatics are not new.
For every one of these rifles that may have been used in a crime, of any sort, there were 3,000,000+ that were not.
There isn't any need for gun control. There is a need to put a bullet in the head of every asswipe that commits murder.… And strangely #### wad progressives are the ones that oppose capital punishment at every turn.
Last edited:
PsyOps
Pixelated
This has to be one of most ignorant comments I've ever seen from you. EVERY right can be taken away. A right isn't a right because it can't ever be taken away, a right is defined by its nature that it is something that we are born with that our constitution limits the government's power to take away our FREE exercise of that right. If we got the wrong kind of government, every right could, most certainly, be stripped from us.
You've decided to reject that our constitution enumerated the right of the people to keep and bear firearms, just as equally as the right to speech, press, religion, secure in our persons, to remain silent... You have no problem freely and endlessly exercising you free speech rights, and then call into question whether keeping and bearing a firearm as just as much a right:
..."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Last edited:
I don't reject anything, dummy. You yourself in a recent thread have stated that firearm ownership is a privilege.
If something is a "right" it cannot be taken away. Like the right to think freely, for example. Explain how that can be taken away, please. Let me give you a shortcut to knowledge: it cannot be taken away. In our system, the right to firearm ownership can be taken away (and you support that). That makes it not a right.
You don't realize it, but you're stating that our "rights" come from government and not our humanity or Creator if you prefer.
PsyOps
Pixelated
I have NEVER said owning and carrying a firearm is a privilege. EVER!
And I apologize for my harsh language. For some reason I thought I was replying to Trans. I adamantly disagree with most of your points, but I don't hold any sort of disdain toward as I do with Trans.
What issue is that? The fact that you obviously know little or nothing about firearms?...or the fact that selective bans will do nothing to remove the estimated 400 million plus firearms from circulation?..or the fact that nutjobs don't care what the laws are?
if you keep indulging it's multiple personality disorder it'll never get better!
Well, high capacity and high caliber are two very different things.
But neither here nor there, what magazine capacity would you stop at? 10? Or lower? And how would you prevent them from simply slapping in another mag when they want to go on a rampage? It only takes a second to swap out, and I'm not even that practiced at it.
black dog
Free America
Seems your lack of firearm knowledge really hinders the conversation here..
What's high capacity?
Is a firearm that's designed to hold 10 rounds of ammunition high capacity? Is a machinegun that uses belt feed high capacity?
PsyOps
Pixelated
I have been consistent that we are born with our rights and are not granted to us from government. The constitution does not define those rights, it protect our FREE PRACTICE of those rights from a government that could limit or even completely strip them from us. A right is defined as something we can FREELY exercise. It is clear (as I quoted to you) that our founded defined keeping and bearing our arms is a right; and that right shall not be infringed by government. Just because the government could come along and strip us of that right doesn't make it any less a right. I mean, given your definition, EVERYTHING (speech, religion, press, etc...) are privileges.
A privilege is something that you're allowed, by the graces of some authority, to exercise. And we should differentiate between what is vs what should be. I own firearms. The government did not stop me from owning them. THAT is what a right looks like. Just because I had to jump through some hoops to get those guns, doesn't define it as a privilege. I do believe there are some of those hoops that are wildly unconstitutional. But, like with every right, there are going to be some limitations. I cannot disrupt a classroom with a prayer or start preaching and claim it's my constitutional right to do so. I can't just walk into a legislative meeting and start speaking over top of them and disrupt their meeting.
The constitution was never meant to make it a free-for-all in exercising our rights. It was meant to limit government's authority to infringe on our rights through laws that would punish us for exercising those right. The government cannot punish me for being a Christian. They cannot punish me for making statements they disagree with. They cannot punish me for posting this post. They cannot shut down newspapers or cable news channels because they became critical of the standing government.
Last edited:
Your statement here means you think firearm ownership is a privilege. You may not believe that it does, but it does:
https://forums.somd.com/threads/327...of-a-Firearm?p=5847862&viewfull=1#post5847862
No worries mate, harsh words don't bother me.
Yes, it does. Something that can be taken away (regardless of the process to do that) is not a right. It is a privilege.
Of course, I'm not arguing for the confiscation of guns. I'm just based in reality that it is a privilege and can be taken away at anytime by government by the mere stroke of a pen.
