Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

i am legitimately scared about trump becoming president

Page 15 of 39 [ 623 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 39  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

25 Jan 2016, 6:45 pm

Lukeda420 wrote:
But there is a lot of room between lets have no regulations on guns and let's ban all guns. It seems that any regulation proposed no matter how modest is met with shrieks of "they're gonna take my guns!!" Considering that there is no public or political will to ban guns in this country, using that as an excuse to say no to any regulation is irrational.


Maybe because guns are already too regulated, so we don't need any more gun regulation.

There's a area between no regulation and more more more regulation. We are already past it.

Also thousands of people lose their guns every year and the gov plans to add 75,000 more to them every year. Me included. So yes they are taking my guns. And many millions of other people's guns.



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

25 Jan 2016, 6:48 pm

Raptor wrote:
That aside, I’m not understanding your phobia of them…
you don't understand why someone would be afraid of a gun that can chew most up anything that isn't armor plated. you've not really changed have you raptor :p



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

25 Jan 2016, 6:50 pm

sly279 wrote:
Lukeda420 wrote:
But there is a lot of room between lets have no regulations on guns and let's ban all guns. It seems that any regulation proposed no matter how modest is met with shrieks of "they're gonna take my guns!!" Considering that there is no public or political will to ban guns in this country, using that as an excuse to say no to any regulation is irrational.


Maybe because guns are already too regulated, so we don't need any more gun regulation.

There's a area between no regulation and more more more regulation. We are already past it.

Also thousands of people lose their guns every year and the gov plans to add 75,000 more to them every year. Me included. So yes they are taking my guns. And many millions of other people's guns.


The typical anti-gunner has no clue of existing gun laws or the history of them.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

25 Jan 2016, 6:51 pm

AR15000 wrote:
Lukeda420 wrote:
Seriously is there any regulation at all on guns that some of you guys support? Give me an example of a regulation that you would support.



In exchange for eliminating the Brady Bill, what I favor is a modification of the NFA that would allow for ownership of automatic rifles(under .50 caliber) without all the red tape but ban civilian ownership of all firearms that exceed .50 caliber along with military explosive devices.

And things like the M-134 minigun which technically can be owned with a class III firearms license would be strictly off limits but the stryker shotgun would be allowed.

I support all gun rights and all gun owners. What you suggest only divides us and turns us against each other. It's why the anti gunners will eventually ban all guns.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

25 Jan 2016, 6:56 pm

Raptor wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Lukeda420 wrote:
But there is a lot of room between lets have no regulations on guns and let's ban all guns. It seems that any regulation proposed no matter how modest is met with shrieks of "they're gonna take my guns!!" Considering that there is no public or political will to ban guns in this country, using that as an excuse to say no to any regulation is irrational.


Maybe because guns are already too regulated, so we don't need any more gun regulation.

There's a area between no regulation and more more more regulation. We are already past it.

Also thousands of people lose their guns every year and the gov plans to add 75,000 more to them every year. Me included. So yes they are taking my guns. And many millions of other people's guns.


The typical anti-gunner has no clue of existing gun laws or the history of them.

Yep they think there's ZERO regulation on guns. They think you can have a m1 Abrams mailed to your house with no background check. :roll:

They also don't consider taking any guns being taking guns. By that logic rape isn't rape as long as th guy doesn't penetrate the vagina. And racism isn't racism if you only hate 99% of blacks, but like one of them.

If you take just one gun!! !! !! ! From anyone then your taking guns. It's quite simple. But they want to trick and lie to people so their keep getting closer toward their total gun ban.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

25 Jan 2016, 6:57 pm

AR15000 wrote:
Not that I'm aware of..........HOWEVER, if terrorists(domestic and foreign) get their hands on a minigun and mounted it onto a vehicle or an aircraft they could easily use it to kill scores of people. The minigun would be a great weapon for a drive-by shooting.


There are much easier and cheaper ways to kill a lot of people in a hurry than a rare and exotic weapon costing hundreds of thousands of dollars that would tip over a car if you tried to fire it out of one, that requires an external power supply, thousands of rounds of ammunition per minute, and some means of feeding those rounds into the gun at 100 per second. As I said, that's an oddly specific restriction, and not something I'd spend a lot of time worrying about.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

25 Jan 2016, 7:01 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Lukeda420 wrote:
See it's not that I'm anti-gun, I just don't believe in the threat to the average gun owner's rights in that regard.


That's because this isn't your issue. Like I said to the other poster, the best comparison is abortion rights, where everyone knows that the anti-abortion people want a total ban but are settling for as many petty and inconveniencing regulations as they can get away with in order to make it as difficult as possible until they can shift the judicial landscape in their favor. This is EXACTLY how gun owners view anti-gun people and proposals, and the comparison tracks, right down to the emotional appeals and bloody shirt waving in lieu of actual arguments. I'm not the first to make this comparison, and I feel it's a useful one for liberals attempting to understand the absolute positions that gun owners take and why they take them. I'm not willing to compromise with people I feel to be bargaining in bad faith who are ignorant if not actively deceitful on the topic at hand, and I don't think many other people would be either.
How is it not the issue of non-gun owners when the gun companies/lobbies refuse to accept that their products aren't regulated sufficiently? they could easily make the bad press go away and save lives, but instead they're valuing dollar bills over human lives.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

25 Jan 2016, 7:01 pm

Fugu wrote:
Raptor wrote:
That aside, I’m not understanding your phobia of them…
you don't understand why someone would be afraid of a gun that can chew most up anything that isn't armor plated. you've not really changed have you raptor :p


By the same token, I don't live in fear of a 747 crashing down on my house.

Quote:
you've not really changed have you raptor :p

I haven't lost my appetite for fish either. :twisted:
Image


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

25 Jan 2016, 7:05 pm

Raptor wrote:
Fugu wrote:
you don't understand why someone would be afraid of a gun that can chew most up anything that isn't armor plated. you've not really changed have you raptor :p


By the same token, I don't live in fear of a 747 crashing down on my house.
That's because aeroplanes are regulated 3 ways from sunday, unlike firearms.




p.s that's catfish, you've mixed up your fish again :p



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

25 Jan 2016, 7:05 pm

Lukeda420 wrote:
But there is a lot of room between lets have no regulations on guns and let's ban all guns.


First, there are already tens of thousands of regulations on guns, we're not starting from the zero position here, and secondly, every regulation sets up the next one, as they never work and so more are called for, it's called an incremental approach, or ratchet.

Lukeda420 wrote:
It seems that any regulation proposed no matter how modest is met with shrieks of "they're gonna take my guns!!"


You've yet to put forward a "modest" regulation that will do any good, and as previously mentioned, the strategy here is incremental, and I don't trust anyone telling me that if I give a little they won't take any more, the history of gun control in this country and world wide has show that for the lie it is.

Further, you never really answered my point about the abortion comparison; what "modest" regulation of abortion, put forward by people you know want to ban it, would you accept as reasonable? You're supposed to be the liberal here, put yourself in my shoes and try to imagine what things look like to me and how that might inform my position, rather than simply going on about how I'm doing things for reasons you can't understand.

Lukeda420 wrote:
Considering that there is no public or political will to ban guns in this country, using that as an excuse to say no to any regulation is irrational.


So, I should just be complacent and trust to the "lack of political will" to safeguard my gun rights while they're chipped away at lest people who don't know anything about guns call me irrational? That doesn't seem like a good plan.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

25 Jan 2016, 7:06 pm

Fugu wrote:
How is it not the issue of non-gun owners when the gun companies/lobbies refuse to accept that their products aren't regulated sufficiently? they could easily make the bad press go away and save lives, but instead they're valuing dollar bills over human lives.


Actually, they're valuing truth over ignorance and idiocy, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

25 Jan 2016, 7:15 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Fugu wrote:
How is it not the issue of non-gun owners when the gun companies/lobbies refuse to accept that their products aren't regulated sufficiently? they could easily make the bad press go away and save lives, but instead they're valuing dollar bills over human lives.


Actually, they're valuing truth over ignorance and idiocy, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
truth huh? ok then. Is it truth that the gun industry has ignored what the public wanted for ~ the past 20 odd years with respect to gun regulation?
Image
how about that old chestnut that the NRA trots out "they're gonna take my guns"
Image
hmmm, ok. not looking good..
how about this showing what people think contributes to shootings, surely that'll show the NRA is right and gun regulations are fine....
Image..oh dear


dang, not really much truth coming from the guns industry it seems.

source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

25 Jan 2016, 7:29 pm

Dox47 wrote:
You've yet to put forward a "modest" regulation that will do any good
you've yet to put forward "any" regulation, why are you lecturing others on this?



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

25 Jan 2016, 7:58 pm

According to biased left polls 52% of Americans oppose further gun restrictions.

Also gun control ranked 19 out of 23 of important issues with only 2% saying it was one of the nations important issue. So there's 18 more important issues the president and congress should concern it's self with.

You're Such s hypocrite . So it's ok for your side to lecture people on not putting any measures forward but when one of us then turns it around and says he hasn't himself then we'll the bad guys. Wish you'd stayed away for good.



Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,640
Location: Chicago suburbs.

25 Jan 2016, 8:01 pm

I know there are gun laws and some of you really prove my point. I never said anything about making new laws, all I said was any talk of gun regulation gets met with "they want my guns!!" I really just want to know what is considered reasonable.

And Dox,

If you say every law leads to more laws and is a slippery slope and never mention what you consider to be reasonable regulation, then what else am I to believe other than you want no regulations at all?



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

25 Jan 2016, 8:12 pm

Fugu wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Lukeda420 wrote:
See it's not that I'm anti-gun, I just don't believe in the threat to the average gun owner's rights in that regard.


That's because this isn't your issue. Like I said to the other poster, the best comparison is abortion rights, where everyone knows that the anti-abortion people want a total ban but are settling for as many petty and inconveniencing regulations as they can get away with in order to make it as difficult as possible until they can shift the judicial landscape in their favor. This is EXACTLY how gun owners view anti-gun people and proposals, and the comparison tracks, right down to the emotional appeals and bloody shirt waving in lieu of actual arguments. I'm not the first to make this comparison, and I feel it's a useful one for liberals attempting to understand the absolute positions that gun owners take and why they take them. I'm not willing to compromise with people I feel to be bargaining in bad faith who are ignorant if not actively deceitful on the topic at hand, and I don't think many other people would be either.

How is it not the issue of non-gun owners when the gun companies/lobbies refuse to accept that their products aren't regulated sufficiently? they could easily make the bad press go away and save lives, but instead they're valuing dollar bills over human lives.

1) Lobbies don't produce a product.
2) The manufacturer's concern need not go beyond standard product liability and they are very product liability conscience. Ask anyone who’s bought a new gun. However, the manufacturer or dealer obviously has no control over deliberate misuse of their product. If you knew anything about this topic (you don't) you'd at least know that much.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson