Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Akkula

Gun Control (please don't read if it is too soon for you)

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, UNLV2001 said:

That's why the Constitution is a LIVING DOCUMENT - It can and sometimes needs to be a changed to meet the current era - Prohibition was brought in and repealed for example - What personal armaments might be around in the year 2717 ?!?! 

Still facebook, twitter, blogs, etc are the written word just as was the case in 1780 

I'm good with going back to black powder for everyone and turning the internet off. Seems like a solid trade off to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Victor Maitlin said:

Or put it into the context of the open carry nuts.  At what point does my right to sit peacefully in the burger king and eat my frickin whopper without having to make a life or death decision that the whack job coming across the parking lot with an assault rifle is just compensating for a tiny dick and not coming to shoot everyone in sight take precedence over the open carry nut's right to overcompensate for a small dick.

I believe in a right to open carry, but as a gun owner you should use it with extreme discretion. I don't think I have ever open carried except maybe on hunting trips. 

In Idaho we are an open carry state, however you can be charged with brandishing a weapon if you recklessly display or carry it, or remove it from your holster. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do believe the discussion needs to be had. I am a gun owner of one hand gun to simply have should the unfortunate scenario arise that I need to protect my family and home. In my opinion, I see no reason why any normal civilian should own any type of high-powered guns used in the Vegas shooting. These types of weapons were designed for use by the military in a combat situation. I'm not a fan of the reason is because gun enthusiasts want to get their jollies off by going out to the desert or range and firing a high powered AR, AK, etc.

It is a slippery slope argument though that could be used to say why should a civilian own a semi-auto handgun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SharkTanked said:

True. I just meant we should give enough time to form a logical and rational discussion rather than a purely reactionary one. But I do fear logic and rational thought will never enter this discussion. It would be the definition of irony if the next civil war were fought over the right to own firearms.

I would say that we should at least wait until the last of the victims is laid to rest would be a good waiting period.  Here is a compromise.  We outlaw bump stocks and hand crank triggers in in exchange for an agreement to not serialize ammunition?  Both sides would give some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SharkTanked said:

I'm good with going back to black powder for everyone and turning the internet off. Seems like a solid trade off to me.

I wonder if Mug would be willing to launch a MWC letter correspondence exchange. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, nomascows said:

I would say that we should at least wait until the last of the victims is laid to rest would be a good waiting period.  Here is a compromise.  We outlaw bump stocks and hand crank triggers in in exchange for an agreement to not serialize ammunition?  Both sides would give some.

IMO that seems fair. Personally, I think we could get to the point where we make weapons that cannot be modified outside of a scope. Then there could be federal law that it is illegal to modify a firearm in any way. Maybe there could be a way to standardize a rate of fire in the trigger mechanism that couldn't be modified without ruining the gun? I know it would be impossible to police any of that (at least without licensure and required annual inspections, both of which are non-starters) and none of it may be technically feasible. Just thinking out loud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SharkTanked said:

I'm good with going back to black powder for everyone and turning the internet off. Seems like a solid trade off to me.

When the 2nd was written, the average yokel had the same arms as the military of the day.........the single shot muzzle loading black powder musket, when a bow and arrow was literally the machine gun of the era (as far as rapidity of shooting).

Times have changed and where does it end?  "To defend myself from a tyrannical government"  is the usual reason given by many, so why stop at AR-15's and why not get yourself a Abrams Tank or RPG Launchers........you never know when the government or crazed neighbor might attack !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SharkTanked said:

I'm good with going back to black powder for everyone and turning the internet off. Seems like a solid trade off to me.

You kid but I wonder how much social media, and media in general, play into some of these atrocities.  The fact that this guy recorded himself doing these things makes me wonder if he thought that he would go down in history like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Those idiots at Columbine probably had delusions of grandeur about what they were doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

I believe in a right to open carry, but as a gun owner you should use it with extreme discretion. I don't think I have ever open carried except maybe on hunting trips. 

In Idaho we are an open carry state, however you can be charged with brandishing a weapon if you recklessly display or carry it, or remove it from your holster. 

In Oregon, people carry at Costco. Can't be careful enough when you go to the big sanctuary city. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BackthePack said:

I do believe the discussion needs to be had. I am a gun owner of one hand gun to simply have should the unfortunate scenario arise that I need to protect my family and home. In my opinion, I see no reason why any normal civilian should own any type of high-powered guns used in the Vegas shooting. These types of weapons were designed for use by the military in a combat situation. I'm not a fan of the reason is because gun enthusiasts want to get their jollies off by going out to the desert or range and firing a high powered AR, AK, etc.

It is a slippery slope argument though that could be used to say why should a civilian own a semi-auto handgun.

? They were .223 rifles. Any rifle large enough for deer is significantly more high-powered than a .223. My .270 is significantly more powerful than a 7.62x39 AK round. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, UNLV2001 said:

That's why the Constitution is a LIVING DOCUMENT - It can and sometimes needs to be a changed to meet the current era - Prohibition was brought in and repealed for example - What personal armaments might be around in the year 2717 ?!?! 

Still facebook, twitter, blogs, etc are the written word just as was the case in 1780 

The constitution is certainly not a living document. It's is the supreme law of the land. If you want to change the constitution there is a method in place. 2/3 of congressman, and 2/3 of states ratify. And the founding father purposely made it very difficult to amend. 

Go into your bank and say your mortgage contract is a living contract changeable to interpretation as the times demand it. Let me know how that works out for you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, I am Ram said:

In Oregon, people carry at Costco. Can't be careful enough when you go to the big sanctuary city. 

I don't get the open carry people - Why advertise your packing ?!?! If anyone wants your gun, the open carry person is the first one to take a shot or just get blindsided, dropped and lose their gun.

Might be a "look at me" or " have a small penis" thing :shrug:

Was behind a guy ( all 5-9 of him) who had a side arm strapped on.......what was to stop me from slamming his head into the column like and egg & taking his gun ?!?! "Hey, I thought he might be a shooter, so I acted" - Might be worth the assault charge :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SharkTanked said:

IMO that seems fair. Personally, I think we could get to the point where we make weapons that cannot be modified outside of a scope. Then there could be federal law that it is illegal to modify a firearm in any way. Maybe there could be a way to standardize a rate of fire in the trigger mechanism that couldn't be modified without ruining the gun? I know it would be impossible to police any of that (at least without licensure and required annual inspections, both of which are non-starters) and none of it may be technically feasible. Just thinking out loud.

A lot of regulation sounds good in theory but in practice it is very hard to enforce.  I don't like giving up my freedoms, especially when there is almost no hope of it succeeding.  If more laws was the answer, Chicago and Baltimore would be pretty safe places. With the internet, the knowledge of how to do just about anything is at the fingertips of everyone.  Don't even get me started on what happens when the materials science of 3D printing gets to the point that the materials can handle the pressures of ammunition.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, happycamper said:

? They were .223 rifles. Any rifle large enough for deer is significantly more high-powered than a .223. My .270 is significantly more powerful than a 7.62x39 AK round. 

Aren't hunting rifles usually bolt-action and not semi-auto/full-auto? I think the time it takes to reload could be a starting point for segmenting the "high-powered" grouping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, happycamper said:

? They were .223 rifles. Any rifle large enough for deer is significantly more high-powered than a .223. My .270 is significantly more powerful than a 7.62x39 AK round. 

Sure. But he goes on to say correctly that "These types of weapons were designed for use by the military in a combat situation." Maybe he should say "anti-personnel" as opposed to "high-powered."

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bornontheblue said:

The constitution is certainly not a living document. It's is the supreme law of the land. If you want to change the constitution there is a method in place. 2/3 of congressman, and 2/3 of states ratify. And the founding father purposely made it very difficult to amend. 

Go into your bank and say your mortgage contract is a living contract capable to interpretation as the times demand it. Let me know how that works out for you. 

A living document can be altered..........the Constitution can and has been altered = Thus for me a living changeable document 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, I am Ram said:

I wonder if Mug would be willing to launch a MWC letter correspondence exchange. 

 

Already working on it.  

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never really understood the rationale behind open-carrying other than an ego thing

On 12/1/2016 at 12:26 PM, WyomingCoog said:

I own a vehicle likely worth more than everything you own combined and just flew first class (including a ticket for a 2 1/2 year old), round trip to Las Vegas and I'm not 35 yet. When you accomplish something outside of finishing a book, let me know. When's the last time you saw a 2 year old fly first class in their own seat? Don't tell me about elite.  

28 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I’d happily compare IQ’s with you any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, UNLV2001 said:

I don't get the open carry people - Why advertise your packing ?!?! If anyone wants your gun, the open carry person is the first one to take a shot or just get blindsided, dropped and lose their gun.

Might be a "look at me" or " have a small penis" thing :shrug:

Was behind a guy ( all 5-9 of him) who had a side arm strapped on.......what was to stop me from slamming his head into the column like and egg & taking his gun ?!?! "Hey, I thought he might be a shooter, so I acted" - Might be worth the assault charge :whistle:

You seem to have a profound fascination with penises.  Not judging or anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...