Brandon Strikes Again

[KansasTiger 3,256]

3 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

We had one for 10 years.  The 2nd Amendment is not immune from govt regulation.

Is there no problem at all?

https://apnews.com/article/uvalde-school-shooting-buffalo-supermarket-texas-d1415e5a50eb85a50d5464970a225b2d

Restrictions on constitutional rights happen, and when they do, they're always wrong. Govt wants more power and control always.

We need more guns in the right hands. Not to restrict a specific type of gun not even used in most mass shooting so you can feel like you 'did something'.

[KansasTiger 3,256]

2 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

People might actually believe some of this BS if you didn't cry wolf over and over and over and over and over and over again.

It's not crying wolf over and over again if it's true. And it gets brought up so much because most liberals just ignore it cause they know it's true, too.

Polling shows most people in America, in both parties, are concerned with his mental state. And you call yourself right of center 🤣 

[AU9377 5,051]

2 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Restrictions on constitutional rights happen, and when they do, they're always wrong. Govt wants more power and control always.

We need more guns in the right hands. Not to restrict a specific type of gun not even used in most mass shooting so you can feel like you 'did something'.

The constitution is not the Holy Bible.  It is a governing document meant to provide structure and protect the civil liberties of citizens.  The amendment was included in the constitution for several reasons, but the primary was that during the Revolutionary war, the crown had ordered all weapons be registered and seized  in order to weaken the revolt. 

I have always noted that there is no one pill fix to our gun violence problems.  However, one small step would be to limit access to these type weapons.  It will happen at some point. Unfortunately, a lot of innocent people will die at the hands of nuts with easy access to these weapons before that happens. 

There are too many guns in our society and the results are not pretty.  It stains the image of this country and it should embarrass us all.

[AU9377 5,051]

9 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

It's not crying wolf over and over again if it's true. And it gets brought up so much because most liberals just ignore it cause they know it's true, too.

Polling shows most people in America, in both parties, are concerned with his mental state. And you call yourself right of center 🤣 

Well friend, you pretend not to be part of the fringe right that eats the crap up regardless of the validity of it all.  The man has always had a stutter. 

He isn't the best candidate, but he will likely be the better choice considering who the Republicans will likely nominate.

[KansasTiger 3,256]

3 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Well friend, you pretend not to be part of the fringe right that eats the crap up regardless of the validity of it all.  The man has always had a stutter. 

He isn't the best candidate, but he will likely be the better choice considering who the Republicans will likely nominate.

I'd vote for ANY person in the field currently before voting for this shell of a man.

[I_M4_AU 8,012]

1 minute ago, AU9377 said:

The man has always had a stutter. 

You have got to be kidding!!!  That was no stutter, it was the phase of life right before sleep.    Better known as stuporous but a rousable. You can’t believe the excuse of he has always had a stutter as reasonable at this point.

[I_M4_AU 8,012]

9 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

The amendment was included in the constitution for several reasons, but the primary was that during the Revolutionary war, the crown had ordered all weapons be registered and seized  in order to weaken the revolt. 

You wrote this and still don’t understand the reason to take this amendment serious?

[KansasTiger 3,256]

7 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

The constitution is not the Holy Bible.  It is a governing document meant to provide structure and protect the civil liberties of citizens.  The amendment was included in the constitution for several reasons, but the primary was that during the Revolutionary war, the crown had ordered all weapons be registered and seized  in order to weaken the revolt. 

I have always noted that there is no one pill fix to our gun violence problems.  However, one small step would be to limit access to these type weapons.  It will happen at some point. Unfortunately, a lot of innocent people will die at the hands of nuts with easy access to these weapons before that happens. 

There are too many guns in our society and the results are not pretty.  It stains the image of this country and it should embarrass us all.

The constitution may as well be the Bible when it comes to our government. You're giving more opinions. Opinions that perfectly back up why I don't want more govt restrictions on guns btw. Our govt could attempt to do the same thing.

More guns please. Go ammend the constitution if you want to change that.

[auburnatl1 5,100]

Take away all the guns vs I need virtually military grade weapons. Dear lord what extremes. One solution is to ship the “take the guns” guys to New Zealand and let them peacefully herd sheep and ship the “I need military weapons” guys to Ukraine, do something useful with them, and end the war in 3 days.

Edited July 19, 2023 by auburnatl1

[KansasTiger 3,256]

3 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Take away all the guns vs I need virtually military grade weapons. Dear lord what extremes.

Constitution vs what I want is a better summation of the current argument.

AR is not even a military grade weapon. It's a rifle that looks scary.

[auburnatl1 5,100]

5 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Constitution vs what I want is a better summation of the current argument.

AR is not even a military grade weapon. It's a rifle that looks scary.

Its roots come straight from the m16 and its the proven weapon of choice for wackos. I’ll leave it at that.

[I_M4_AU 8,012]

19 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Take away all the guns vs I need virtually military grade weapons. Dear lord what extremes. One solution is to ship the “take the guns” guys to New Zealand and let them peacefully herd sheep and ship the “I need military weapons” guys to Ukraine, do something useful with them, and end the war in 3 days.

How do you think these two extremes break down?  Do you think there are more take all the guns away guys than I need all the military weapons I can afford guys?

[KansasTiger 3,256]

5 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Its roots come straight from the m16 and its the proven weapon of choice for wackos. I’ll leave it at that.

Oh well in that case, please continue to advocate to restrict my rights as a law abiding citizens, cause the gun is related to a different gun but cant do the same thing, and because wacko's might buy the gun more. While we are there, can you show me the evidence that more wacko's use it than other types of weapons? Cause I don't think that's actually true. I'll be honest, even if it was, I wouldn't care. 

Banning ARs without addressing any meaningful way of taking the millions of them currently in circulation out of the system is pointless. And good luck with that. Most people buying them aren't likely going to advertise to the govt they have them, participate in any buyback program, or give them back to the govt regardless of whatever law is passed. 

So instead of stripping rights, we could take a look at deterrents for people that would harm others, like I've brought up before. But it doesn't fix the issue the way you want it fixed, so you reject it.

[auburnatl1 5,100]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

How do you think these two extremes break down?  Do you think there are more take all the guns away guys than I need all the military weapons I can afford guys?

 No there’s a 3rd type: the middle.  Every citizen has the right to protect their home and hunt (there’s way too many deer anyway).  No slippery slope. Limit mag capacity at 10 and ban rifles that have a military design (crazy magnet).  Won’t stop mass murders but it will lessen body count.

I know the response to this will be straight out of the nra playbook, but it’s the right thing to do.

[KansasTiger 3,256]

Just now, auburnatl1 said:

 No there’s a 3rd type: the middle.  Every citizen has the right to protect their home and hunt (there’s way too many deer anyway).  No slippery slope. Limit mag capacity at 10 and ban rifles that have a military design (crazy magnet).  Won’t stop mass murders but it will lessen body count.

I know the response to this will be straight out of the nra playbook, but it’s the right thing to do.

Not even close, buddy.

[auburnatl1 5,100]

Just now, KansasTiger said:

Not even close, buddy.

There I go being wrong again.

[KansasTiger 3,256]

Just now, auburnatl1 said:

There I go being wrong again.

It's ok, we all are sometimes. And we've gone over before why I think this solution doesn't actually address the issue (many assailants just buy multiple guns vs reloading anyway) and strips the populace further from owning the necessary means of rebellion when/if that need arises.

So I'm not going to rehash it beyond that.

[aubaseball 2,660]

24 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Its roots come straight from the m16 and its the proven weapon of choice for wackos. I’ll leave it at that.

Well, I’m going to advocate that we restrict your freedom of speech because I don’t like the way you think.    Because according to your logic , there are restrictions to that already.   

[I_M4_AU 8,012]

8 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

 No there’s a 3rd type: the middle.  Every citizen has the right to protect their home and hunt (there’s way too many deer anyway).  No slippery slope. Limit mag capacity at 10 and ban rifles that have a military design (crazy magnet).  Won’t stop mass murders but it will lessen body count.

I know the response to this will be straight out of the nra playbook, but it’s the right thing to do.

Really avoids the questions asked.  On the extremes, not talking about the middle, who has more members?

To your proposal; how do you suggest we round up all the 30 bullet magazines already is existence?  If you do it on a voluntary basis, well you just created a lot more criminals overnight.  Who gets to determine which guns are of the *scary* type to be banned?  You know the head of the ATF can’t even define an *assault weapon*

[auburnatl1 5,100]

1 minute ago, aubaseball said:

Well, I’m going to advocate that we restrict your freedom of speech because I don’t like the way you think.    Because according to your logic , there are restrictions to that already.   

1) respectfully,  that makes absolutely no sense 2) there’s only 1 guarantee on this forum:  have any kind of opinion about any basic parameters on weapons and you get irrational  meltdowns like no other topic.  As predictable as gravity.

Ps I have 4 guns. 2 bolt action rifles,  a revolver, and a shotgun.  Just none  over 6 rounds.  

[KansasTiger 3,256]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

Really avoids the questions asked.  On the extremes, not talking about the middle, who has more members?

To your proposal; how do you suggest we round up all the 30 bullet magazines already is existence?  If you do it on a voluntary basis, well you just created a lot more criminals overnight.  Who gets to determine which guns are of the *scary* type to be banned?  You know the head of the ATF can’t even define an *assault weapon*

This was a point i brought up before as well last time we discussed all this. No one who owns a 30 mag is turning them in to any voluntary buyback program. They will be easily obtainable for criminals. This 'solution' only makes it harder for law abiding citizens to get them. It's a 'feel good' law, as most of these are. Everyone claps, feels like they did something, our rights are further stripped, and none of the outcomes actually change.

[auburnatl1 5,100]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

To your proposal; how do you suggest we round up all the 30 bullet magazines already is existence? 

Same way they got rid of machine guns. Buy backs and 5 years to transition - after that, felony.

Btw im bailing on this topic. It’ll just begin to hurt my head 

[KansasTiger 3,256]

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Really avoids the questions asked.  On the extremes, not talking about the middle, who has more members?

To your proposal; how do you suggest we round up all the 30 bullet magazines already is existence?  If you do it on a voluntary basis, well you just created a lot more criminals overnight.  Who gets to determine which guns are of the *scary* type to be banned?  You know the head of the ATF can’t even define an *assault weapon*

Notice how we launched into all this gun stuff AFTER you posted the latest Biden stuff? Pretty masterful distraction, hey look over there! They're learning from their government.

[KansasTiger 3,256]

1 minute ago, auburnatl1 said:

Same way they got rid of machine guns. Buy backs and 5 years to transition - after that, felony.

Btw im bailing on this topic. It’ll just begin to hurt my head 

Bail bail bail

[I_M4_AU 8,012]

1 minute ago, KansasTiger said:

Notice how we launched into all this gun stuff AFTER you posted the latest Biden stuff? Pretty masterful distraction, hey look over there! They're learning from their government.

Yes, and the news that Trump will be indicted came out one day before the whistleblowers are set to testify today in Congress.  Brilliant.

Edited July 19, 2023 by I_M4_AU