forums

Off-Topic Mass killings

Tony4Miami said:
Where did I say anything about taking rights away??

I remember when Reagan threatened states their Federal money unless they raised drinking age. Why can't same be done with rifles?
Click to expand...
Uh, didn't you just suggest taking away the rights of under 21 year olds? And professed support for arbitrary background checks to exercise a right guaranteed in the CONUS?
 
Advertisement
Tony4Miami said:
Where did I say anything about taking rights away??

I remember when Reagan threatened states their Federal money unless they raised drinking age. Why can't same be done with rifles?
Click to expand...
because drinking isnt in the Constitution.

again, muppets love to just make shït up.

if what you propose is so reasonable, ammend Constitution.

Easy peasy.
 
Suhrthing said:
Uh, didn't you just suggest taking away the rights of under 21 year olds? And professed support for arbitrary background checks to exercise a right guaranteed in the CONUS?
Click to expand...

So. 18-20 yo should be able to do anything they want?
 
Is age mentioned in Constitution besides voting and ages to be in US Government?
 
Tony4Miami said:
So, how do local governments and citizens slow down the gun violence??

I would imagine all the gun experts want Constitutional Carry laws. What else?

What does it hurt to raise age for all gun purchases to 21?? The US Government did it for alcohol and cigarettes.

What does it hurt to have background check if you want to buy a gun at a show or a private sale??
Click to expand...
For the record, I prefer concealed carry permits and dislike the idea of open carry. That doesn't mean prosecuting someone who accidentally prints while carrying concealed with a license.

I think it helps that people who might carry have instruction on the laws surrounding guns and basic gun safety.
 
Advertisement
Was the assault weapons ban from the mid 90's - early '00's a slippery slope? I don't recall a huge push to ban all weapons during that time period. I could be wrong.

Gun laws are the gateway drug of our time. I'm sure the NRA will create a "Reefer Madness 2.0" soon. :)
 
Tony4Miami said:
Where did I say anything about taking rights away??

I remember when Reagan threatened states their Federal money unless they raised drinking age. Why can't same be done with rifles?
Click to expand...
Alcohol is not a right given by God.

Protecting yourself and family is.

Simple
 
CaneinBroward said:
Was the assault weapons ban from the mid 90's - early '00's a slippery slope? I don't recall a huge push to ban all weapons during that time period. I could be wrong.

Gun laws are the gateway drug of our time. I'm sure the NRA will create a "Reefer Madness 2.0" soon. :)
Click to expand...
The extremists were very much still pushing more bans. The AWB passing was such an unpopular measure for voters that the moderates had to back away...
 
Advertisement
JD08 said:
For the record, I prefer concealed carry permits and dislike the idea of open carry. That doesn't mean prosecuting someone who accidentally prints while carrying concealed with a license.

I think it helps that people who might carry have instruction on the laws surrounding guns and basic gun safety.
Click to expand...
Would need to ask what other libraries do you think you aren’t allowed until after government decides you are worthy of it? Then when the scumbags see they can control people by controlling that system what happens when you don’t agree with their opinion? I get both sides of the argument. A gun can certainly pose an immediate risk. While voting in the wrong people can pose a more long term negative impact and on much more people. Who gets decide who gets to vote and who doesn’t? It is going to be the evil people who abused their power to lock down the common folk while they ignored all their own rules.
 
PanteraCanes said:
Would need to ask what other libraries do you think you aren’t allowed until after government decides you are worthy of it? Then when the scumbags see they can control people by controlling that system what happens when you don’t agree with their opinion? I get both sides of the argument. A gun can certainly pose an immediate risk. While voting in the wrong people can pose a more long term negative impact and on much more people. Who gets decide who gets to vote and who doesn’t? It is going to be the evil people who abused their power to lock down the common folk while they ignored all their own rules.
Click to expand...
I understand the concern and can't say I don't share it. Once you go to constitutional carry, you get businesses putting up No Weapons signs because of political pressure. That makes for a whole different set of problems, the effects of which are felt by legal gun owners, not criminals.
 
PanteraCanes said:
Would need to ask what other libraries do you think you aren’t allowed until after government decides you are worthy of it? Then when the scumbags see they can control people by controlling that system what happens when you don’t agree with their opinion? I get both sides of the argument. A gun can certainly pose an immediate risk. While voting in the wrong people can pose a more long term negative impact and on much more people. Who gets decide who gets to vote and who doesn’t? It is going to be the evil people who abused their power to lock down the common folk while they ignored all their own rules.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I could argue against some basic civics education being required to vote either. It's obvious from these OT threads that people lack a fundamental understanding of how the 3 branches and checks and balances are supposed to work.
 
JD08 said:
I understand the concern and can't say I don't share it. Once you go to constitutional carry, you get businesses putting up No Weapons signs because of political pressure. That makes for a whole different set of problems, the effects of which are felt by legal gun owners, not criminals.
Click to expand...
If it is private land then fine. Though I figure that will go away fast as either the competitors that don’t care get more business or the ones that don’t allow them become the new soft targets. I am wondering about any business that gets some kind of government support should also be considered an agent of the government and thus must not trample upon freedoms the government isn’t allowed to trample upon?
 
Back
Top