Except the person being shot at with an automatic large magazine rifle.Montegriffo wrote:No one needs an automatic large magazine rifle
I know the UK way is to keep a cup of acid handy, but we're more civilized.
Except the person being shot at with an automatic large magazine rifle.Montegriffo wrote:No one needs an automatic large magazine rifle
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
viewtopic.php?p=60751#p60751
I was talking about the 19th century, why do you guys turn every thread into "no, no, we've love the black man, the black man has absolutely no cause to complain in America, America is the black man's paradise and always has been..."Okeefenokee wrote:Yeah, you're out of your area here, Smits. Out in the sticks is a completely different situation. We go to church together, and we take our kids to play little league together.Speaker to Animals wrote:
This is what happens when Hollywood defines us to the rest of the world. They actually believe this shit.
Hell, we even had black dudes riding junior rodeo, dippin' cope, and listenin' to Waylon in the wal-mart parking lot on friday nights with the other white JRA dudes.
It wasn't until I left the sticks and got out into the world that I found out how racist all you city slickers are.
Well then it is a good thing that is not what was used here. Or any recent mass shooting for that matter.Montegriffo wrote:No one needs an automatic large magazine rifle
We don't live in a yee-haw gun free-for-all, you nit.PartyOf5 wrote:Where did I mention disarming? I never did. Take your maniacal ranting and stuff it for a moment so you can at least comprehend what it was I wrote.DBTrek wrote:My point was the idiocy in a user writing a post about how they know criminals will murder anyway, but admitting they're finally on board with disarming the elderly, disabled, oppressed, and sportsmen, because Steven Colbert said more words.
There is a lot of ground between yee-haw gun free-for-all and disarming. Stop screaming at everyone who isn't in the free-for-all camp like they mean to take away every gun, down to the last BB.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
viewtopic.php?p=60751#p60751
Emotional reaction to a shooting that ranks as what? A fucking month in Chicago. Every month. 12 times a year. The strictest gun laws in the nation sees a Vegas shooting 12 times a year.PartyOf5 wrote:The rest of you go into 'roid rage at the very mention of even discussing what could be done to prevent or limit attacks like the one in Las Vegas.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
viewtopic.php?p=60751#p60751
This.DBTrek wrote:I think you need to ask yourself the reverse.
We already have all sorts of restrictions on gun ownership.
Still the left caterwauls.
Is there any amount of restriction that is enough for the left?
Because all we've done to the 2nd Amendment since its inception is restrict it further and further and still the caterwauling continues.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
viewtopic.php?p=60751#p60751
If no one told you yet, the woman doesn't seem to be an accomplice. He was using some gambling membership of hers while she's been away. That's why they had her on the radar.PartyOf5 wrote:That was actually my quote, not TCs.Smitty-48 wrote:It's a lone wolf suicide attack, operationally, there's literally nothing you can do to stop that sort of thing, it's a one off, it's a black swan event, what could you really do? You could assemble the arsenal which that guy assembled, in Canada, with the very gun control laws that the most left wing of left wing Americans advocate for, we got all the laws, and we've had two mass shootings, with guys packing more firepower than that guy was shooting at the crowd with there, we had one mass shooter with an HK91, and another with an M14, and all the gun laws in Canada, didn't make a lick of difference, lone wolf suicide attack, is not subject to the law, it's not even subject to operations, and if you can acquire an HK91 and an M14 in Canada, then what realistically could you legislate to prevent that, in America, where the gun is king?The Conservative wrote: The rest of you go into 'roid rage at the very mention of even discussing what could be done to prevent or limit attacks like the one in Las Vegas.
The gun is not king here, gun control is king, but it's a crown of paper, doesn't actually stop bullets when the lone wolf opens fire, black swan event.
If the person goes in knowing he's going to die, then death penalty laws aren't going to deter him. I would be for it anyways as a way to deter the ones who plan on getting away with murder and living on.
There's still a lot of misinformation flying about, but it sounds like hie wife or girlfriend knew about his plans. usually others close to these shooters have an idea of what is going down. Find ways to get these "accomplices" convicted with some harsher penalties and maybe you'd have someone rat him out before he can carry out his plan.
And TC, just because someone changes their stance doesn't mean they were browbeaten. If you aren't going to at least respect my opinion, then don't expect to get it back in the future.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
viewtopic.php?p=60751#p60751
As with every law, the definition is key. What is the definition of armed violence? What is the recourse for those who get wrongly cropped into that bunch?Kath wrote:Well, those seem reasonable. I'd add those with a history of armed violence cannot get a weapon legally.The Conservative wrote:
There is a background check, most places don't allow you to go with the gun you purchased without you passing it. I have no issue with background checks, but it should not be up to the sheriff if you pass said background check to not give you a gun license.
In my case here is what I'd want:
Background checks only last a month, if you purchase a second gun after the month is over you need to be re-checked. (This will allow updated statuses to be given to purchasers)
Semi-Auto weapons are legal, Any weapon that requires more than one person to carry ammo or utilize should not be able to be purchased by the average user. Those would require collector licenses. (Rocket Launchers, mortars, tanks, heavy weaponry, etc.
Any gun user must pass a firearm safety class before being able to purchase ammo. (You can purchase a gun, just not the ammo, not till you show you know how to handle a gun, and done so in a certified class.
For those that can make their own bullets (like me) need to have a way to keep track of said ammo. So that if it's used in an illegal act, they can be traced back to its creator. Either by serial numbering the casings in some way that can't be removed, or each one that is stamped is trackable. You would also need a separate license for the presses.
(That's on the top of my head) I have more but I'm working.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
viewtopic.php?p=60751#p60751
Quote the person here who has said, "no restrictions."Kath wrote:You have no evidence at all in the past several years that I support gun bans. I'm asking a serious question. So, I should put you down for no restrictions whatsoever?kybkh wrote:
How many restrictions are you willing to place upon yourself to feel safe? You trust the govt not to abuse their power if they felt the populous posed little to no threat?
A guy can walk to a gun shop and say, "I need to quietly shoot the guy who is sleeping with my wife, what do you recommend?" It's all good?
It's a serious question for those of you who say "no restrictions." I want to know what that means.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
viewtopic.php?p=60751#p60751
You're so full of shit. My kids conceal carry every got-dang day when I drop them off at daycare.DBTrek wrote:Sounds like people need to familiarize themselves with the Gun Control Act of 1968 so they can quit asking for restrictions that are ALREADY IN PLACE.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
viewtopic.php?p=60751#p60751