U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-13-2017, 02:39 PM
 
2,717 posts, read 1,753,805 times
Reputation: 3318

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87 View Post
No. You're a FUDD



Tell me where in the 2nd does it say
A well regulated animal population, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms to hunt, shall not be infringed.
No need to be a dick. But I guess you can’t help it. Isn’t it time for you to head back for your latest Klan meeting?

 
Old 11-13-2017, 02:40 PM
 
6,406 posts, read 3,425,408 times
Reputation: 10140
The debate about guns is tiresome. Guns have been and will always be dangerous in the hands of the wrong people. Guns will be used for LEGAL hunting and at LEGAL ranges as a sport. "Bad" people (criminals etc) will kill with a gun. An otherwise responsible owner can make a critical mistake in storage and a child could inadvertently shoot him/herself.

Crying about the constitutional right to bear arms is weak. The world has changed, and so can the constitution to bring it up to speed with today's world, IF an amendment was done properly (I have no definition for proper in this context). Banning, outlawing - not the proper approach. More restrictions? How about tightening up the legislation already on the books. Technology has come a long way, so get tighter with database usage to all of those who sell weapons. Good luck stopping the black/underground market.

Was it unconstitutional to ban cigarette smoking in public places, something widespread now. Hey, it protects my asthmatic lungs better. Why is all the focus on the users? How about the manufacturers? Other than military grade weapons, sure you could "outlaw" guns to the general public that shout "x" rounds in "x" seconds, which MAYBE could limit something like what happened in Vegas. But someone with a handgun can inflict a lot of damage on unsuspecting public before being apprehended.

We could all go on and on with this. People suck and will continue to do so, and as such will continue to tarnish the gun industry. I personally do not care for guns, don't own one, and have shot a handgun once in my life at a range. I don't believe in high powered weapons at all for general public use, but I'm not going to cry about it. If the government can't figure anything out nothing is going to change anyways other than more word volleying.
 
Old 11-13-2017, 02:40 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
6,976 posts, read 7,746,882 times
Reputation: 5670
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
well that's why your comment, that the intent defines the weapon, was silly

you could probably drop a 1000kg bomb onto a hog from an aircraft too, but that doesn't make it a hunting bomb dropped from a hunting aircraft.
That's exactly where your illogical argument is heading, though. You don't get to change the definition in order to suit your argument. As several have pointed out, there is an actual definition of "assault rifle," and the AR-15 does not meet that definition.
 
Old 11-13-2017, 02:41 PM
 
9,426 posts, read 4,536,850 times
Reputation: 5361
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalmancpa View Post
The debate about guns is tiresome. Guns have been and will always be dangerous in the hands of the wrong people. Guns will be used for LEGAL hunting and at LEGAL ranges as a sport. "Bad" people (criminals etc) will kill with a gun. An otherwise responsible owner can make a critical mistake in storage and a child could inadvertently shoot him/herself.

Crying about the constitutional right to bear arms is weak. The world has changed, and so can the constitution to bring it up to speed with today's world, IF an amendment was done properly (I have no definition for proper in this context). Banning, outlawing - not the proper approach. More restrictions? How about tightening up the legislation already on the books. Technology has come a long way, so get tighter with database usage to all of those who sell weapons. Good luck stopping the black/underground market.

Was it unconstitutional to ban cigarette smoking in public places, something widespread now. Hey, it protects my asthmatic lungs better. Why is all the focus on the users? How about the manufacturers? Other than military grade weapons, sure you could "outlaw" guns to the general public that shout "x" rounds in "x" seconds, which MAYBE could limit something like what happened in Vegas. But someone with a handgun can inflict a lot of damage on unsuspecting public before being apprehended.

We could all go on and on with this. People suck and will continue to do so, and as such will continue to tarnish the gun industry. I personally do not care for guns, don't own one, and have shot a handgun once in my life at a range. I don't believe in high powered weapons at all for general public use, but I'm not going to cry about it. If the government can't figure anything out nothing is going to change anyways other than more word volleying.
A good start would be to enforce the current laws.
 
Old 11-13-2017, 02:41 PM
 
Location: PSL
8,231 posts, read 2,181,134 times
Reputation: 2935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike930 View Post
Strange. I donít recall asking for your opinion. Go back to your bunker.
Strange I don't recall having to consult with you or anyone else for that matter in regards to Needs pertaining to constitutionally protected rights or private property for that matter. aww what's a matter snowflake. Don't like the taste of your own medicine?
 
Old 11-13-2017, 02:43 PM
 
22,769 posts, read 26,132,273 times
Reputation: 14556
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom View Post
As several have pointed out, there is an actual definition of "assault rifle"
per the u.s. army

whose opinions arent terribly important to me
 
Old 11-13-2017, 02:45 PM
 
Location: PSL
8,231 posts, read 2,181,134 times
Reputation: 2935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike930 View Post
No need to be a dick. But I guess you can’t help it. Isn’t it time for you to head back for your latest Klan meeting?
Who's the racist here?
My girlfriend is of Cuban and Puerto Rican descent.
(I'm sure she wouldn't appreciate that comment)

You are afraid of black rifles.
#BlackRiflesMatter! Shoulder things that go up, don't ban!

Who's the racist Mike?
Go on and leave your arrogance on display for the world to see. It's quite entertaining
 
Old 11-13-2017, 02:46 PM
 
Location: Louisiana
7,468 posts, read 4,227,903 times
Reputation: 6023
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
well that's why your comment, that the intent defines the weapon, was silly

you could probably drop a 1000kg bomb onto a hog from an aircraft too, but that doesn't make it a hunting bomb dropped from a hunting aircraft.
If the goal is to prevent hogs from ruining your property,
then a 1000kg bomb would prolly be counterproductive.
 
Old 11-13-2017, 02:47 PM
 
2,717 posts, read 1,753,805 times
Reputation: 3318
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
We can't buy assault weapons.


FYI this guy doesn't speak for the rest of us here.
I didnít say I spoke for everyone. From the posters here I guess being pro assault weapon means you have little to no reading comprehension. Figures.
 
Old 11-13-2017, 02:47 PM
 
9,426 posts, read 4,536,850 times
Reputation: 5361
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
per the u.s. army

whose opinions arent terribly important to me
And your opinion is not important to most of us.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top