NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Postwar Sportscard Forums > WaterCooler Talk- Off Topics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #851  
Old 07-19-2022, 06:40 PM
Carter08 Carter08 is offline
J@mes Nonk.es
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 1,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bnorth View Post
an isolated incident does not alone support a broader argument.

Wouldn't a mass shooting since they are very rare be an isolated incident? How about a gun legally purched just before a crime? Isn't that another rare isolated incident? They seem to be isolated incidents you are using to promote more gun laws.
Oh no, that turns us to aggregate numbers. Come on man, you know this country has many, many, many mass shootings. That’s the whole reason this debate rages on. You can do better.
Reply With Quote
  #852  
Old 07-19-2022, 06:45 PM
bnorth's Avatar
bnorth bnorth is online now
Ben North
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 10,226
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter08 View Post
Oh no, that turns us to aggregate numbers. Come on man, you know this country has many, many, many mass shootings. That’s the whole reason this debate rages on. You can do better.
I would say they are almost non existant compared to other murders. They just get the news coverage.

EDIT to add: There are an average of 316 people shot in America every day. How many months/years would it take in mass shootings to reach that number? So yes I believe using mass shooting to promote more gun laws is beyond silly.

Last edited by bnorth; 07-19-2022 at 06:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #853  
Old 07-19-2022, 06:46 PM
Mark17's Avatar
Mark17 Mark17 is offline
M@rk S@tterstr0m
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter08 View Post
How is that possible? Some of the more recent shootings were folks that purchased weapons a day or two before their mass shooting. So restrictions may have done not just the smallest thing but the greatest thing in those situations.
When someone purchases a gun, there isn't a question like "Do you plan to use this to murder a bunch of people?" And if there was such a question, it wouldn't be answered truthfully.

Here's an example of gun restrictions using the latest example. The mall had a "No guns on these premises" policy. The murderer of course broke that policy. Most law abiding folks obeyed it. Fortunately, there was one guy who ignored it (probably realizing how da** stupid those signs are) and saved countless lives.

Can you ever understand that murderers aren't going to obey laws, while law abiding people, by definition, generally do?

Last edited by Mark17; 07-19-2022 at 06:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #854  
Old 07-19-2022, 06:59 PM
Carter08 Carter08 is offline
J@mes Nonk.es
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 1,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bnorth View Post
I would say they are almost non existant compared to other murders. They just get the news coverage.

EDIT to add: There are an average of 316 people shot in America every day. How many months/years would it take in mass shootings to reach that number? So yes I believe using mass shooting to promote more gun laws is beyond silly.
So we shouldn’t try to restrict guns because there are so many shootings with guns? That’s an only in America moment.
Reply With Quote
  #855  
Old 07-19-2022, 07:01 PM
Carter08 Carter08 is offline
J@mes Nonk.es
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 1,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark17 View Post
When someone purchases a gun, there isn't a question like "Do you plan to use this to murder a bunch of people?" And if there was such a question, it wouldn't be answered truthfully.

Here's an example of gun restrictions using the latest example. The mall had a "No guns on these premises" policy. The murderer of course broke that policy. Most law abiding folks obeyed it. Fortunately, there was one guy who ignored it (probably realizing how da** stupid those signs are) and saved countless lives.

Can you ever understand that murderers aren't going to obey laws, while law abiding people, by definition, generally do?
Can you understand that easy access to guns generally promotes both good and bad people from getting them? The Vegas shooter had how many guns? What does anyone in this country need so many. Let’s add a dose of reasonableness to our vehement desire to be good guys with guns.
Reply With Quote
  #856  
Old 07-19-2022, 07:06 PM
bnorth's Avatar
bnorth bnorth is online now
Ben North
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 10,226
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter08 View Post
So we shouldn’t try to restrict guns because there are so many shootings with guns? That’s an only in America moment.
LOL, YOU are the one using mass shooting as your excuse. I am just pointing out how silly the excuse you are using is.
Reply With Quote
  #857  
Old 07-19-2022, 07:08 PM
Carter08 Carter08 is offline
J@mes Nonk.es
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 1,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bnorth View Post
LOL, YOU are the one using mass shooting as your excuse. I am just pointing out how silly the excuse you are using is.
Mass shootings are my concern. I readily admit that. I don’t see how the prevalence of non-mass shooting gun violence cuts against “my side.” To the contrary, I would think it supports “my side.”
Reply With Quote
  #858  
Old 07-19-2022, 07:14 PM
bnorth's Avatar
bnorth bnorth is online now
Ben North
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 10,226
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter08 View Post
Mass shootings are my concern. I readily admit that. I don’t see how the prevalence of non-mass shooting gun violence cuts against “my side.” To the contrary, I would think it supports “my side.”
They are so few and far between with so few people involved compared to other shootings it makes zero sense to focus on them. or maybe I couldn't care less about this subject and like reading silly to me responses.
Reply With Quote
  #859  
Old 07-19-2022, 07:18 PM
Mark17's Avatar
Mark17 Mark17 is offline
M@rk S@tterstr0m
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter08 View Post
Can you understand that easy access to guns generally promotes both good and bad people from getting them? The Vegas shooter had how many guns? What does anyone in this country need so many. Let’s add a dose of reasonableness to our vehement desire to be good guys with guns.
Do you think your average gang member buys his guns legally, following the rules and restrictions?
Reply With Quote
  #860  
Old 07-19-2022, 07:19 PM
G1911 G1911 is online now
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 7,117
Default

Aggregate is good.

The CDC (hardly a conservative, pro-gun group! Very much the opposite, in fact) concluded there are are between 500,000-3,000,000 defensive gun uses per year in an anti-gun study that was part of the Obama administrations attacks on the 2nd as part of an executive order.

Using a firearm for lawful defense (which very rarely results in an actual discharge; most criminals are looking for easy pickings and not a fight, unlike exceptionally rare mass shooters that rarely seem to plan on survival; criminals tend to stop as soon as they realize they are facing an armed victim or bystander) is fairly common.

Obviously the very specific circumstances of this very unusual incident under most recent discussion are rare (so are the incidents brought up by the other stand; exceptional incidents that receive coverage are, well, exceptional); but using a firearm, in lawful self-defense is common. For every such case, there are many many more where a law-abiding person is possessing or carrying a firearm for defense and never has to use it at all. For every one of these, there are other recreational, sport and other legal shooters. Legal uses of a firearm vastly outweigh illegal uses of a firearm (many, many of the illegal uses of a firearm are paperwork crimes, not what people think of at first). And yet, millions of us are to be criminalized and the Constitution ignored if the regulators and banners ever get their way, with no real impact on homicides just like the last X number of regulations and bans.
Reply With Quote
  #861  
Old 07-19-2022, 07:28 PM
G1911 G1911 is online now
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 7,117
Default

While I understand why many want to regulate, ban, or reverse time into the 18th century, I have never understood many of the things that seem to rankle them most. Like quantity of guns owned. A person has two hands, and dual wielding is some video game absurdity. A long gun and a pistol are about all a person could use effectively in a single incident; having a collection doesn't up the lethality. If anything it reduces it, carrying tons of extra weight and swapping guns takes far more time than just using what they have in hand. One can't really carry more than a few hundred rounds effectively. An active shooter doesn't need and can't use a large number of guns (I am aware of 0 incidents - the Vegas shooter used very little from his stash) or a hoard of ammunition (I am aware of only 1 such incident in US history, the Vegas shooter). Many of the existing laws are rooted in this belief from post 855 that makes no sense whatsoever, even if one adopts the belief that guns are inherently evil and those who have them must be suppressed by the State as gospel.
Reply With Quote
  #862  
Old 07-19-2022, 07:33 PM
Carter08 Carter08 is offline
J@mes Nonk.es
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 1,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark17 View Post
Do you think your average gang member buys his guns legally, following the rules and restrictions?
They most certainly do not.
Reply With Quote
  #863  
Old 07-19-2022, 07:35 PM
Carter08 Carter08 is offline
J@mes Nonk.es
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 1,910
Default

Your average gang member does not impose a threat on someone living in rural Iowa though. That’s just a fact of geography.
Reply With Quote
  #864  
Old 07-19-2022, 07:38 PM
G1911 G1911 is online now
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 7,117
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter08 View Post
Your average gang member does not impose a threat on someone living in rural Iowa though. That’s just a fact of geography.
I know I shouldn’t engage, but it’s too funny sometimes. Why would the life of a person in rural Idaho be worth more than a persons life in Chicago?
Reply With Quote
  #865  
Old 07-19-2022, 07:46 PM
Carter08 Carter08 is offline
J@mes Nonk.es
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 1,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
I know I shouldn’t engage, but it’s too funny sometimes. Why would the life of a person in rural Idaho be worth more than a persons life in Chicago?
Not sure where Idaho comes into this mix but the point - lost on some apparently - is that urban gang violence primarily involving handguns doesn’t affect 99 percent of the population and seems a poor justification for everyone to be able to buy AR-15s. Let the point sink in, miss it, and the. Write something over the top crazy, mean, and trolly. I will wait.
Reply With Quote
  #866  
Old 07-19-2022, 07:48 PM
Mark17's Avatar
Mark17 Mark17 is offline
M@rk S@tterstr0m
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter08 View Post
They most certainly do not.
Finally, you admit the additional gun restrictions you advocate won't affect the criminals.
Reply With Quote
  #867  
Old 07-19-2022, 07:53 PM
cgjackson222's Avatar
cgjackson222 cgjackson222 is offline
Charles Jackson
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,710
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark17 View Post
Finally, you admit the additional gun restrictions you advocate won't affect the criminals.
We act like there are two kinds of people: criminals and "good guys."
But isn't life a little more complicated than that?

For example, a depressed, troubled, but generally law abiding 18 year old can buy an assault rifle. Why not raise the age limit to decrease the chances of an 18 year old bringing an assault rifle to school?

Last edited by cgjackson222; 07-19-2022 at 07:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #868  
Old 07-19-2022, 07:56 PM
G1911 G1911 is online now
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 7,117
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter08 View Post
Not sure where Idaho comes into this mix but the point - lost on some apparently - is that urban gang violence primarily involving handguns doesn’t affect 99 percent of the population and seems a poor justification for everyone to be able to buy AR-15s. Let the point sink in, miss it, and the. Write something over the top crazy, mean, and trolly. I will wait.
Yes, you said Iowa. I was wrong. I should have said "why is the life of someone in Chicago less important than one in Iowa?"

Of course it doesn't affect 99%. School shootings don't affect 99.999%, but you wanted to de facto ban all firearms under your 10,000x 'tax' plan to address that. I don't get how the fact that a person in Chicago (a progressive city with heavy gun laws) is more likely to be shot and killed than in rural Iowa invalidates the point. Since the topic is broad federal laws to apply to all without regard for locality (nobody here has proposed repealing the 2nd and then applying the 10th), how does it matter?

If you know that the vast majority of firearms crimes, gang and otherwise, are committed with handguns, why the constant obsession with AR-15's that, relative to their commonality, is among the least used of firearms in crime? It is the only gun you single out, and have many, many times.
Reply With Quote
  #869  
Old 07-19-2022, 07:58 PM
Mark17's Avatar
Mark17 Mark17 is offline
M@rk S@tterstr0m
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cgjackson222 View Post
We act like there are two kinds of people: criminals and "good guys."
But isn't life a little more complicated than that?

For example, a depressed, troubled, but generally law abiding 18 year old can buy an assault rifle and bring it to school. Why not raise the age limit to decrease the chances of an 18 year old bringing an assault rifle to school?
The hero in the mall was just 22 years old. Just curious, how do you correlate depressed and troubled with age?
Reply With Quote
  #870  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:01 PM
G1911 G1911 is online now
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 7,117
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cgjackson222 View Post
We act like there are two kinds of people: criminals and "good guys."
But isn't life a little more complicated than that?
It is incredibly obvious that the 'bad guy' in these discussions and scenarios is the person murdering innocent people . It's very, very, very simple. The good guy is the person taking action to stop the massacre of innocent people.

If one cannot identify who at the mall was the 'good guy' and who was the 'bad guy', well...

EDIT: For the 5,000th time they cannot legally purchase an assault rifle. "Assault rifle" is an actual object with an actual meaning.

Last edited by G1911; 07-19-2022 at 08:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #871  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:03 PM
cgjackson222's Avatar
cgjackson222 cgjackson222 is offline
Charles Jackson
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,710
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark17 View Post
The hero in the mall was just 22 years old. Just curious, how do you correlate depressed and troubled with age?
What? I am just saying that troubled/depressed kids exist. But because they are law abiding, they can buy an assault rifle (without a considerable waiting period). This does not seem wise to me.

And I'm not asking the age limit to be 22, so I am not really sure how your comment is relevant.
Reply With Quote
  #872  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:04 PM
G1911 G1911 is online now
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 7,117
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cgjackson222 View Post
they can buy an assault rifle (without a considerable waiting period).
5,001: They factually cannot buy an assault rifle. They and the seller will go to federal prison for a very, very long time.
Reply With Quote
  #873  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:06 PM
cgjackson222's Avatar
cgjackson222 cgjackson222 is offline
Charles Jackson
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,710
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
It is incredibly obvious that the 'bad guy' in these discussions and scenarios is the person murdering innocent people . It's very, very, very simple. The good guy is the person taking action to stop the massacre of innocent people.

If one cannot identify who at the mall was the 'good guy' and who was the 'bad guy', well...

EDIT: For the 5,000th time they cannot legally purchase an assault rifle. "Assault rifle" is an actual object with an actual meaning.
A lot of people consider the AR-15 a weapon of war. If it's not technically an assault rifle, then my apologies. Either way, I really don't understand why an 18 year old can buy one.
Reply With Quote
  #874  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:06 PM
Carter08 Carter08 is offline
J@mes Nonk.es
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 1,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
Yes, you said Iowa. I was wrong. I should have said "why is the life of someone in Chicago less important than one in Iowa?"

Of course it doesn't affect 99%. School shootings don't affect 99.999%, but you wanted to de facto ban all firearms under your 10,000x 'tax' plan to address that. I don't get how the fact that a person in Chicago (a progressive city with heavy gun laws) is more likely to be shot and killed than in rural Iowa invalidates the point. Since the topic is broad federal laws to apply to all without regard for locality (nobody here has proposed repealing the 2nd and then applying the 10th), how does it matter?

If you know that the vast majority of firearms crimes, gang and otherwise, are committed with handguns, why the constant obsession with AR-15's that, relative to their commonality, is among the least used of firearms in crime? It is the only gun you single out, and have many, many times.
I want some guns to be a little harder to get. It’s not just school mass shootings. The Vegas shooter. Whatever he had would seem like there doesn’t need to be such easy access to such things. There are far more situations where they seem to do bad things versus good things. And it’s not my fault that yet again I think one of his weapons of choice was an AR-15.

If you said to me, we need these weapons to prevent a tyrannical leader from taking over the country/army in violation of democratic processes, I would not think that was crazy. The problem is that battle has already been lost. You are already restricted from owning the weapons needed to fight an actual army. AR-15s are not going to do well against a fighter jet. What we are fighting about is window dressing to that issue. Sadly it’s window dressing that result in a mass shooting in this country far too often with little perceived benefit.
Reply With Quote
  #875  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:10 PM
bnorth's Avatar
bnorth bnorth is online now
Ben North
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 10,226
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
5,001: They factually cannot buy an assault rifle. They and the seller will go to federal prison for a very, very long time.
Would you be interested in teaching the aspecs of thermonuclear fusion to my dog? It would be easier.
Reply With Quote
  #876  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:11 PM
G1911 G1911 is online now
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 7,117
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cgjackson222 View Post
A lot of people consider the AR-15 a weapon of war. If it's not technically an assault rifle, then my apologies. Either way, I really don't understand why an 18 year old can buy one.
There is not a single military force in the entire world using an AR-15 like civilians in the US may purchase. Semi-auto .223's are not used by any military. They never have been. That some find this false branding helpful to their argument does not make it true. This one is just plain factually wrong, yet again.

This one element so difficult in these debates. All of the knowledge is on one side, it's like arguing evolution with a creationist; they just do not know what they are talking about and are factually wrong over and over.
Reply With Quote
  #877  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:11 PM
Deertick Deertick is offline
Jim M.arinari
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Where Forgeries Abound, FL
Posts: 1,478
Default

Here's a hypothetical:

In 2030, the 34th amendment is ratified repealing the 2nd.
Federal laws are passed that specify stringent training, security clearance and registration to possess. Insurance is mandatory. Any incident of negligence or improper use revokes the individuals right to possess (to include poaching). Firearms are required to have biometric or rfid safety mechanisms. Limits are in place per household. Any firearm not in compliance, is subject to confiscation and destruction. CCP is still a thing

Who's in?
__________________
"If you ever discover the sneakers for far more shoes in your everyday individual, and also have a wool, will not disregard the going connected with sneakers by Isabel Marant a person." =AcellaGet
Reply With Quote
  #878  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:13 PM
cgjackson222's Avatar
cgjackson222 cgjackson222 is offline
Charles Jackson
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,710
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bnorth View Post
Would you be interested in teaching the aspecs of thermonuclear fusion to my dog? It would be easier.
You guys are truly hilarious.

Being able to buy an AR-15 on your 18th birthday is not that funny though.

Last edited by cgjackson222; 07-19-2022 at 08:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #879  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:13 PM
G1911 G1911 is online now
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 7,117
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bnorth View Post
Would you be interested in teaching the aspecs of thermonuclear fusion to my dog? It would be easier.
Apparently it would be easier, just the most basic of points on the subject, they refuse to learn, even though it sinks their argument from the get go. 'Indisputable Mechanical Facts About The Basic Function Of The Most Common Guns 101' is evidently a difficult course.
Reply With Quote
  #880  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:13 PM
Carter08 Carter08 is offline
J@mes Nonk.es
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 1,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bnorth View Post
Would you be interested in teaching the aspecs of thermonuclear fusion to my dog? It would be easier.
Hahaha. Agree - it’s like trying to teach older white men about social progress.
Reply With Quote
  #881  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:14 PM
Carter08 Carter08 is offline
J@mes Nonk.es
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 1,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cgjackson222 View Post
You guys are truly hilarious.

Being able to buy an AR-15 on your 18th birthday is not that funny though.
Don’t worry, they will send their thoughts and prayers when we have a mass shooting.
Reply With Quote
  #882  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:16 PM
Mark17's Avatar
Mark17 Mark17 is offline
M@rk S@tterstr0m
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deertick View Post
Here's a hypothetical:

In 2030, the 34th amendment is ratified repealing the 2nd.
Federal laws are passed that specify stringent training, security clearance and registration to possess. Insurance is mandatory. Any incident of negligence or improper use revokes the individuals right to possess (to include poaching). Firearms are required to have biometric or rfid safety mechanisms. Limits are in place per household. Any firearm not in compliance, is subject to confiscation and destruction. CCP is still a thing

Who's in?
Again, gang members and other various criminals and murderers will have no problem arming themselves on the black market.

If a politician proposed what you just did, they'd certainly get the Crip and Bloods vote.
Reply With Quote
  #883  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:17 PM
G1911 G1911 is online now
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 7,117
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter08 View Post
I want some guns to be a little harder to get. It’s not just school mass shootings. The Vegas shooter. Whatever he had would seem like there doesn’t need to be such easy access to such things. There are far more situations where they seem to do bad things versus good things. And it’s not my fault that yet again I think one of his weapons of choice was an AR-15.

Didn't you just say single incidents weren't valid to prove a greater point? That was the first logical thing you'd said all thread, besides your first post where you had a completely different view.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter08 View Post
If you said to me, we need these weapons to prevent a tyrannical leader from taking over the country/army in violation of democratic processes, I would not think that was crazy. The problem is that battle has already been lost. You are already restricted from owning the weapons needed to fight an actual army. AR-15s are not going to do well against a fighter jet. What we are fighting about is window dressing to that issue. Sadly it’s window dressing that result in a mass shooting in this country far too often with little perceived benefit.
I don't believe anyone has made a case they want a gun to overthrow the state. That the government can murder us all with aircraft does not seem relevant to any point anyone has actually made. Sure, my AR-15 would be useless if the government decided to carpet bomb my state.
Reply With Quote
  #884  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:18 PM
G1911 G1911 is online now
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 7,117
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deertick View Post
Here's a hypothetical:

In 2030, the 34th amendment is ratified repealing the 2nd.
Federal laws are passed that specify stringent training, security clearance and registration to possess. Insurance is mandatory. Any incident of negligence or improper use revokes the individuals right to possess (to include poaching). Firearms are required to have biometric or rfid safety mechanisms. Limits are in place per household. Any firearm not in compliance, is subject to confiscation and destruction. CCP is still a thing

Who's in?
Security clearance? I feel like that is probably not what you actually meant.
Reply With Quote
  #885  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:20 PM
G1911 G1911 is online now
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 7,117
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter08 View Post
Hahaha. Agree - it’s like trying to teach older white men about social progress.
Sounds racist and ageist.
Reply With Quote
  #886  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:23 PM
bnorth's Avatar
bnorth bnorth is online now
Ben North
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 10,226
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
Sounds racist and ageist.
Yes but is it really any sillier than the majority of his posts?
Reply With Quote
  #887  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:23 PM
cgjackson222's Avatar
cgjackson222 cgjackson222 is offline
Charles Jackson
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,710
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deertick View Post
Here's a hypothetical:

In 2030, the 34th amendment is ratified repealing the 2nd.
Federal laws are passed that specify stringent training, security clearance and registration to possess. Insurance is mandatory. Any incident of negligence or improper use revokes the individuals right to possess (to include poaching). Firearms are required to have biometric or rfid safety mechanisms. Limits are in place per household. Any firearm not in compliance, is subject to confiscation and destruction. CCP is still a thing

Who's in?
I think I'm in for the most part. Sounds kind of like Switzerland: https://www.businessinsider.com/swit...hs-2018-2?op=1
Reply With Quote
  #888  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:24 PM
Deertick Deertick is offline
Jim M.arinari
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Where Forgeries Abound, FL
Posts: 1,478
Default

Life in prison for anyone selling "blackmarket" Buybacks and bounties. Existing possession is grandfathered contingent on meeting requirements.

Again, if you meet the requirements, any individual can have a CCP.
__________________
"If you ever discover the sneakers for far more shoes in your everyday individual, and also have a wool, will not disregard the going connected with sneakers by Isabel Marant a person." =AcellaGet
Reply With Quote
  #889  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:24 PM
Carter08 Carter08 is offline
J@mes Nonk.es
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 1,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
Didn't you just say single incidents weren't valid to prove a greater point? That was the first logical thing you'd said all thread, besides your first post where you had a completely different view.




I don't believe anyone has made a case they want a gun to overthrow the state. That the government can murder us all with aircraft does not seem relevant to any point anyone has actually made. Sure, my AR-15 would be useless if the government decided to carpet bomb my state.
Here’s where we can engage. I feel like the right to have weapons is meant to protect you and the citizens of whatever state you are in from a rogue federal government/federal leader more than it is to protect you from the fellow citizens of your own state. No?
Reply With Quote
  #890  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:24 PM
G1911 G1911 is online now
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 7,117
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bnorth View Post
Yes but is it really any sillier than the majority of his posts?
No - he's an actual troll. Everyone else is a least serious, even if they refuse to learn the most basic facts about the subject they are passionate about.
Reply With Quote
  #891  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:26 PM
Deertick Deertick is offline
Jim M.arinari
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Where Forgeries Abound, FL
Posts: 1,478
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
Security clearance? I feel like that is probably not what you actually meant.
I meant similar requirements, minus the credit score, lol
__________________
"If you ever discover the sneakers for far more shoes in your everyday individual, and also have a wool, will not disregard the going connected with sneakers by Isabel Marant a person." =AcellaGet
Reply With Quote
  #892  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:31 PM
G1911 G1911 is online now
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 7,117
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter08 View Post
Here’s where we can engage. I feel like the right to have weapons is meant to protect you and the citizens of whatever state you are in from a rogue federal government/federal leader more than it is to protect you from the fellow citizens of your own state. No?
It was the largest concern when the 2nd was written, and a driving one as the text makes clear. It was not the only one; the founders certainly believed very much in a natural born right to defend one's family and hearth, and to hunt.

Nobody here is threatening to use them against a rogue state, or saying they will/would. Few of the pro-gun comments have stated what specifically they own or why, I think bnorth did; none imply this. Civilian's are not using their 5.56's against aircraft, they are using them mostly for sport and home defense (to which the AR is particularly well suited), some for hunting.
Reply With Quote
  #893  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:32 PM
Carter08 Carter08 is offline
J@mes Nonk.es
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 1,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
No - he's an actual troll. Everyone else is a least serious, even if they refuse to learn the most basic facts about the subject they are passionate about.
Again, you both raise poor responses to actual points. Sigh. God bless America nevertheless.
Reply With Quote
  #894  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:32 PM
G1911 G1911 is online now
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 7,117
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deertick View Post
I meant similar requirements, minus the credit score, lol
Credit score doesn't change it much, the other requirements and the mandatory insurance would seem to eliminate the less affluent from having them under this plan.
Reply With Quote
  #895  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:33 PM
G1911 G1911 is online now
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 7,117
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter08 View Post
Again, you both raise poor responses to actual points. Sigh. God bless America nevertheless.
You had a good, thoughtful response before you changed your position to troll.
Reply With Quote
  #896  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:33 PM
Carter08 Carter08 is offline
J@mes Nonk.es
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 1,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
It was the largest concern when the 2nd was written, and a driving one as the text makes clear. It was not the only one; the founders certainly believed very much in a natural born right to defend one's family and hearth, and to hunt.

Nobody here is threatening to use them against a rogue state, or saying they will/would. Few of the pro-gun comments have stated what specifically they own or why, I think bnorth did; none imply this. Civilian's are not using their 5.56's against aircraft, they are using them mostly for sport and home defense (to which the AR is particularly well suited), some for hunting.
Is it really needed for home defense I think is they question many of us are asking. Because it seems to be used an awful many times for mass shootings.
Reply With Quote
  #897  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:36 PM
Carter08 Carter08 is offline
J@mes Nonk.es
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 1,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
You had a good, thoughtful response before you changed your position to troll.
When I disagree with you you then say I am trolling. Quit that junk. This is a serious issue. My initial posts stated the worst outcome would be to leave law abiding citizens defenseless against bad guys with guns. Still feel that way. The entrenched nature of your position is rough though.
Reply With Quote
  #898  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:43 PM
G1911 G1911 is online now
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 7,117
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter08 View Post
Is it really needed for home defense I think is they question many of us are asking. Because it seems to be used an awful many times for mass shootings.
A civilian AR-15 is the best tech of the 1960's, and then neutered down to comply with bans. Rifles are rarely used in crime, but the majority of rifles these days are AR variants. It's like the Honda Civic of rifles, it's not particularly great but it is ubiquitous, and once something is the standard it is difficult to unseat it.

No single firearm is necessary for home defense, there are many other firearms in the same caliber with the same capacity. Rifles of this type are well-suited to home defense, because of their lack of firepower. The ballistics of 5.56 minimize danger to neighbors, the energy is dumped faster than most other rounds. The light recoil, because of the lack of power, makes it easier to manage than other cartridges for people who do not put in thousands and thousands of rounds of practice. The AR is usually selected over other 5.56 options because parts are everywhere and made by everybody. It's been the civilian standard for over 30 years. It has numerous downsides as well as the upsides, but its downsides aren't things particularly important in a home defense situation.

My home defense rifle is an AR for these reasons; there are better platforms overall or for other purposes.
Reply With Quote
  #899  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:43 PM
BCauley's Avatar
BCauley BCauley is offline
Bill Cauley
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 425
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank A View Post
It seems like nobody wants to hear this shit, but we need the draft back. An 18 year old still does not have a finished brain. The military helps it function properly in the long run. The service makes men out of boys. But God forbid we can't do that to the young men of today. They are babies and brought up spoiled and useless. God help this country, it's going down the drain.
Quite possibly one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on here.

1) I’m curious if you’ve ever served and, if so, if you ever left the wire and saw combat in any way, shape, or form. An 18 year old doesn’t have a finished brain? You’re right. So let’s go give them some shell shock!

2) Hardly anybody who volunteers wants to serve in a potential combat situation with somebody who never wanted to be there in the first place, worried that the drafted won’t have their back.

3) Makes men out of boys? To a degree, yes. It can also bring high rates of suicide, homelessness, and PTSD. “We love our veterans (During voting season anyway)!” But yes, let’s force people into that. And for what?

Last edited by BCauley; 07-19-2022 at 08:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #900  
Old 07-19-2022, 08:45 PM
cgjackson222's Avatar
cgjackson222 cgjackson222 is offline
Charles Jackson
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,710
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911 View Post
There is not a single military force in the entire world using an AR-15 like civilians in the US may purchase. Semi-auto .223's are not used by any military. They never have been. That some find this false branding helpful to their argument does not make it true. This one is just plain factually wrong, yet again.

This one element so difficult in these debates. All of the knowledge is on one side, it's like arguing evolution with a creationist; they just do not know what they are talking about and are factually wrong over and over.
For all of your knowledge, I haven't found any of your arguments against gun reform convincing.

Please enlighten me as to how it is a good idea for an 18 year old to be able to buy an AR-15 the day they turn 18?

Last edited by cgjackson222; 07-19-2022 at 08:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply




Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WTB Comiskey (ownership years card) for evolving HOF set. Misunderestimated Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, W, etc..) B/S/T 1 01-02-2020 07:50 PM
One more way to ruin the hobby - fractional ownership Throttlesteer Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 49 08-14-2019 01:19 PM
Help determining ownership status of several high profile items Sean1125 Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 5 08-29-2015 09:42 AM
Ownership of old photographs theantiquetiger Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used 5 08-17-2011 01:43 PM
Scan Ownership Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 3 12-14-2005 12:10 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:40 PM.


ebay GSB