Welcome to Thunderdome

Vince wrote:

Leisher wrote: I don't, but it will be a factor.

I'm pro-gun, but also pro-reasonable gun control laws (keep them out of the hands of prior offenders, loonies, etc.). I'm also pro-locking up the loonies.

I'm okay for reasonable laws, once we start enforcing the laws already on the books. It's against the law for a convicted felon to even attempt to purchase a firearm, yet they are almost never prosecuted for trying to do so. Before they start enacting more restrictions on me, they should do what they are already authorized to do against those that are breaking current law.

Right? I wish they'd enforce the existing gun laws and regulations like they do with laws and regulations against illegal immigration!

Wait...

CNN piece pointing out that Beto might have just won the gun debate for the GOP.

Why?

Here's his statement on gun control from the debate last night:

"Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47," O'Rourke said to raucous applause from the crowd in Houston, Texas. "We're not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore."

Here's a "progressive" stating that the government is going to forcibly take American citizens' guns. (FYI: This is EXACTLY why the 2nd amendment exists...)

He continues his ignorance:

"And folks are saying, 'Look, I would give up that AR-15 or that AK-47. I don't need it to hunt, don't need it to defend myself in my home.' They recognize this is a weapon designed for war, to kill people as effectively, as efficiently, and in a great a number as possible."

There is so much stupid in that statement that it's mind boggling. Beto clearly doesn't know a fucking thing about the AR-15. I wonder if he looks at all automobiles and thinks they all do the same thing as well?

CD burners only exist to pirate music.

Law abiding citizen defends himself and others against violent robbers.

I'm kind of shocked this got the front page of CNN.

Three fewer goblins.

OK teen makes threats and gets arrested.

Here's where gun control should be used:
1. She's a teen.
2. She has a history of violence.
3. She was expelled for said violence.

She should not have a gun, and certainly shouldn't have been sold an AK. And where the fuck did she get the money for that?

Leisher wrote:
She should not have a gun, and certainly shouldn't have been sold an AK. And where the fuck did she get the money for that?

"It was a JOKE! I only meant to shoot Chinks!"

Democrats frown on targeting gang databases with 'red flag' laws

Oh.

Vince wrote: Democrats frown on targeting gang databases with 'red flag' laws

Oh.

To be fair, there are probably more Dem votes on a gang list than the no fly list.

Here's a thought, instead of worrying about the few times someone gets on one of these lists by mistake, why not make both lists automatic "no buy" lists and then allow people who are on those lists by mistake to get off of them?

I mean, what percentage of the population are we talking about here? People accidentally on one of those lists who also want to buy a gun? 1%?

Leisher wrote: Here's a thought, instead of worrying about the few times someone gets on one of these lists by mistake, why not make both lists automatic "no buy" lists and then allow people who are on those lists by mistake to get off of them?

And "no vote" lists?

Gangs don't get their guns legitimately,anyway.

Vince wrote: And "no vote" lists?

Are there no vote lists or are you saying remove those people's right to vote?

GORDON wrote: Gangs don't get their guns legitimately,anyway.

Don't be ridiculous Gordon. Politicians are only concerned with taking away the ability to purchase guns for law abiding citizens.

"If we seize all the guns, the gangs won't be able to get them at all."

Like when we banned alcohol sales in the US. And made drugs illegal.

Leisher wrote:Are there no vote lists or are you saying remove those people's right to vote?

If they're on a "no fly" list or a "gang member" list, then remove their right to vote along with their right to own a gun.

Until they can get it straightened out, of course.

Vince wrote:

Leisher wrote:Are there no vote lists or are you saying remove those people's right to vote?

If they're on a "no fly" list or a "gang member" list, then remove their right to vote along with their right to own a gun.

Until they can get it straightened out, of course.

Ah yes, agreed.

Of course, I'm 100% on board with Heinlein's "no votes unless you serve" concept as well.

Beto is beyond stupid.

Beto Uses Kent State Shooting To Shame Gun Owners, Doesn't Mention Who Was Behind It

Mass stabbing in Finland.

Anti-gun nut: "Ban guns!"
Me: "Banning guns won't fix the issue."
Anti-gun nut: "Maybe not, but the death toll will be much lower."
Me: "First of all, necessity is the mother of invention. They will find a way. Secondly, say it becomes stabbings. You're saying you are ok with losing fewer people or do you want to ban knives too?"
Anti-gun nut: "No, once guns are banned we can focus on the problem."
Me: "Why not focus on the problem NOW instead of wasting time trying to take away a Constitutional right from law abiding Americans? A right meant to protect citizens from an overreaching government. You know, the one that is constantly taking more and more of our rights away every day along with making us pay more and more in taxes?"
Anti-gun nut: "Ban guns!"

"We have to take these weapons of war off the streets!"

"Our founders wanted to ensure we had the ability to fight back against an oppressive government."

"Oh, you think you can fight an F-18 with your little AR?"

"So they're weapons of war that are unsuitable to fight a war with?"

Oh snap.