Gun Control poll

[FantasticDan]

Originally Posted by Clocker

There is already one cited a few posts above: Bret Stephens and the NY Times.

Uh-oh! He's gonna get you, Clocker! You know what to do..

[BaffertsWig]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

I wonder if anti gun liberals realize that any magazine feed weapon will hold as many rounds as the magazine allows, which is only determined by the size of the magazine, not by the base weapon itself. It seems to be a popular liberal misconception that the evil "assault rifle" holds more rounds than any other easily available weapon.

Originally Posted by BaffertsWig

6 pages and not one mention of high capacity magazines? Or is that too "common sense" and obvious?

[elysiantraveller]

Because you are attempting to ban a piece of plastic with a spring in it. It's non-sensical and there are millions in circulation. Plus let's say you limit to ten you simply carry more magazines. It's a pointless feel good band aid solution.

Most issues being thrown about have nothing to do with a real world solution which is how do we keep bad people from getting guns.

The age issue brought up earlier is stupid too. You're old enough to enlist, be issued an M4, fight and die for this country but you can't buy a semi-automatic rifle as a civilian? Nevermind that hand guns do have that age restriction and still commit far more murders than rifles.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

Uh-oh! He's gonna get you, Clocker! You know what to do..

Isn't it interesting how certain people get all fired up about the first amendment but then immediately go on attack when it comes to the second?

[Tom]

Todd acknowledged that some on the left want to abolish the 2nd Amendment, and that some on the left recognize it is not a realistic goal. He doesn't deny that many on the left, perhaps including himself, would dearly love to see it gone.

I've said many times that it is their right to do so.
OR change it.

THEY keep saying they have all this overwhelming support for strict gun control, but have no balls to try to use the constitution's own remedy for outdated sections - the amendment process.

Too scared to try, or too lazy?

I would think that if the left believed HALF of the BS they post here about mass shooting they would consider it their DUTY to try.

Talk is cheap.

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by Tom

I've said many times that it is their right to do so.
OR change it.

THEY keep saying they have all this overwhelming support for strict gun control, but have no balls to try to use the constitution's own remedy for outdated sections - the amendment process.

Too scared to try, or too lazy?

I would think that if the left believed HALF of the BS they post here about mass shooting they would consider it their DUTY to try.

Talk is cheap.

No reason for an amendment. Gun can be regulated by states under the constitution as it stands.

Did you see scotus deny 2 California gun owners today who did like the 10 waiting period to purchase guns in California. Or the assualt rifle sales ban in jersey and other states.

States already regulate guns no need for an amendment.

Allan

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

Uh-oh! He's gonna get you, Clocker! You know what to do..

You asked for a liberal who really believes the 2nd Amendment can be abolished. I give you Bret Stephens and the NY Times, and all you got is Rambo?

Stallone and Stephens and you all have one thing in common, you are all shooting blanks.

[jocko699]

Justice Thomas' dissent of the Writ of Certiorari denial concerning the legality of Fruitville's 10-day waiting period on gun purchases.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...7-342_4hd5.pdf

[FantasticDan]

Originally Posted by Clocker

You asked for a liberal who really believes the 2nd Amendment can be abolished. I give you Bret Stephens and the NY Times, and all you got is Rambo?

Stephens and the NYT? Stephens wrote an opinion piece that appeared in the NYT. Does the NYT support and endorse all its op-ed pieces, or have they done away with that standard disclaimer?

And I was referring to a politician or legislator on the left, not a columnist.

Btw, this was Stephens' wild rationale for repealing the 2A:

We need to repeal the Second Amendment because most gun-control legislation is ineffective when most Americans have a guaranteed constitutional right to purchase deadly weaponry in nearly unlimited quantities.

There’s a good case to be made for owning a handgun for self-defense, or a rifle for hunting. There is no remotely sane case for being allowed to purchase, as Paddock did, 33 firearms in the space of a year. But that change can’t happen without a constitutional fix. Anything less does little more than treat the symptoms of the disease.

.
Now I know that very sane argument actually sounds insane to a gun nut, but I think most of America would agree with Stephens.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/o...amendment.html

[chadk66]

the overwhelming majority of these shootings could be prevented if we institutionalize the mental cases like we used to do.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

Stephens and the NYT? Stephens wrote an opinion piece that appeared in the NYT. Does the NYT support and endorse all its op-ed pieces, or have they done away with that standard disclaimer?

And I was referring to a politician or legislator on the left, not a columnist.

Btw, this was Stephens' wild rationale for repealing the 2A:

.
Now I know that very sane argument actually sounds insane to a gun nut, but I think most of America would agree with Stephens.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/o...amendment.html

So now we want to change the age and the number you can legally own?

There is that slippery slope.

Two questions... what's an assault rifle? Also were you against handguns after Columbine too? Honest question.

This is the problem with the gun stuff and why people get labelled as "gun nuts." There is no consistency to the arguments. After Columbine it was hand guns. After Aurora it was magazines. After Vegas It was the number of guns. Now after Florida it's the age to purchase... finally it's the let's just repeal the Amendment and start from scratch...

Quite the moving target to negotiate in good faith don't ya think?

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

And I was referring to a politician or legislator on the left, not a columnist.

You said "anyone".

[FantasticDan]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Two questions... what's an assault rifle? Also were you against handguns after Columbine too? Honest question.

This is the problem with the gun stuff and why people get labelled as "gun nuts." There is no consistency to the arguments. After Columbine it was hand guns. After Aurora it was magazines. After Vegas It was the number of guns. Now after Florida it's the age to purchase... finally it's the let's just repeal the Amendment and start from scratch...

Quite the moving target to negotiate in good faith don't ya think?

I think that was the crux of Stephens' argument.. your "moving targets" being his various "symptoms of a disease". That's why he wants to start from scratch.

And I don't know what constitutes an assault rifle. And I have never been for banning handguns. I support the right of a qualified adult to own one if they pass a thorough background check. The same goes for a rifle or shotgun.

[jocko699]

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

I think that was the crux of Stephens' argument.. your "moving targets" being his various "symptoms of a disease". That's why he wants to start from scratch.

And I don't know what constitutes an assault rifle. And I have never been for banning handguns. I support the right of a qualified adult to own one if they pass a thorough background check. The same goes for a rifle or shotgun.

What is a qualified adult?

[FantasticDan]

Originally Posted by jocko699

What is a qualified adult?

Someone who has passed a course regarding the proper handling and operation of their firearm.