idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
Biden won't get my guns. I keep them upstairs.
I'm waiting for a gun buy back. I've got three broken guns I'd like to get some cash out of.
Broken guns can be fixed.
yah know, if you really think Jill Biden is smart enough to run the world, you could do what she did. Just put them in a plastic bag and throw the bag in a dumpster.
uuhhhmmmmm......... either say you did that or you got robbed. Our guvmint buys stories like that if you're "on the team".
Sources: Secret Service inserted itself into case of Hunter Biden’s gun
The bizarre incident involved a trash can, a man searching for recyclables and, eventually, federal law enforcement.
www.politico.com
(edit) Since reading the Politico link, perhaps I should refer not to Jill but to Hallie, I had the notion that it might have been Jill, the mother of the genius Hunter, but no, it was Hallie, the girl who really loves Biden boys and can't stay outta the sack, especially when grieving. I think she was alarmed, believing Hunter got the gun to just kill himself for his bad sex life.
But still I think maybe it's really Jill who is the brains in that family.
But a gun in any condition is worth more to crooks and patriots than to any guvmint buyback. Those ignoramuses won't know if it works or not. But then neither do the buyback people, or..... here's the best part.....f you get yourself on that team you could even "find" the parts you need. Maybe even smuggle some off to some Chinese patriots or immigration assistant teams.
Nelson Rockefeller used to get Treasury green currency that the Treasury replaces for banks when the banks, or some lowlife Treasury employee, say it's damaged, before it actually gets destroyed, loaded onto planes and flown off to support political causes around the world. Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos got one of those distributions and used the greenbacks to buy votes in the Philippines to win elections.
Guvmint gun buybacks are very good events. You can melt some steel cans and make monuments and dedicate them as public displays, and nobody will ever know what you really do with the guns.
Last edited:
Focusing on the "deranged shooters", what are some options you'd consider for prevention?
It really doesn't matter. This would be a genius publicity angle. If the "news" painted them all, whether true or not, as "deranged" or some kinda perv, say child molester, it would have a great effect on deterrence. Whatever the deterrence effect, at least we're not glorifying the shooters. Or generating stupid college student demonstrations. Just denying college professors one pretext for brainwashing students and abusing their professorial authority position would probably be worth it.
We don't actually lock up mental cases. We turn them out on the streets and let them sift through our garbage and live under plastic tarps in the snow and rain, and we pay our shrinks immensely for compiling fat case files, without actually helping anyone.. Welfare for libs professionals.
It is unfortunate that we think people with severe mental issues are better off on the street. Funding mental hospitals was one of the best things Jimmy Carter did only to have it repealed by Reagan a year later.
Mental health issues in this country are increasing, and outside of lip service, nothing is being done about it.
Yes, guns are dangerous, and I am all for more gun regulation, but the mental health epidemic in our country is more dangerous in my opinion. Even with more gun control, mental health issues will still drive a number of shootings. Getting rid of guns in a meaningful way when you are dealing with the 2nd amendment will be very difficult. So start with the easy fix, and get better mental health infrastructure.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
So if a regular semi automatic hunting rifle and an AR-15 are basically the same thing, then no one should be upset if the AR-15 is banned right? I mean if the AR-15 were banned you could just go buy a semi auto hunting rifle and it would cost less too and you would still essentially have an AR-15 right?
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
You hear people say this? AR-15 was made to kill people. Well, the military name for the same gun anyway. They're also fun as hell, and some use them to hunt coyote.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
The point is that if any ban is going to be based on some sort of functionality like semi-auto, large capacity magazines, barrel length, etc. then you'll be banning more than just so called assault rifles. In the civilian market there is no ultimate defining characteristic of an assault rifle. So if some new gun restriction is going to happen it will likely be along the lines of the overall pretty stupid AWB (assault weapon ban) that happened sometime in the 90s. The AWB banned guns with 2 primarily cosmetic features from a list, like having a collapsible stock (which is a very nice accommodation that can allow say a dad, mom and teenage children to all comfortably, accurately and safely fire the same gun with a quick adjustment), or a flash suppressor, or a pistol grip, or a detachable magazine, or a grenade launcher or bayonet (lol).
So if what we think is smart is to ban cosmetic features and pat ourselves on the back for doing something about gun violence I guess we can go for it.
Yes, the AR15 has been used in many mass shootings (4 or more victims). And if they get banned, we may see a 30 rd Remington hunting rifle could used with similar effect. So gun proponents would worry it would be next on the hit list (a continuing erosion of their guns rights). But the AR platform is super customizable for different applications, unlike a standard hunting rifle. They are definitely different. They are also the same, in that all guns are dangerous and can be used to kill humans. Any semi-auto could do similar damage. Even a .22. The .223 round has high velocity, but is a very small round. A +P or +P+ 9mm hollow point pistol round would be more devastating.
While mass shootings are all over the national media, handgun deaths (without looking up the actual stats) account for the lion share of shooting deaths in this country by a LARGE margin (not Large Marge). More concealable, etc, and the ammunition has become even deadlier with new technologies. Again, another big mountain to climb to ban semi-auto handguns (likely won't ever happen), but they cause many more deaths.
GOP Sen. Kennedy compared these shootings to drunk driving a few days ago (saying you don't get rid of sober drivers when drunk driving is a problem). Not the best analogy and he received a lot of media backlash. However, I do agree that if the goal is to save lives, we should look at all avenues (not Kennedy's point), and shore up laws that can save laws (drunk driving laws in most states are quite lax). But with gun control, mass shootings and deaths from AR15/"assault rifles" account for a miniscule amount of the total gun deaths each year, but they are sensationalized by politicians and the media, and are the focus of gun control. It is ludicrous. Yes, they are a problem. Yes, we should do something, but the focus should be on handguns. Mass shootings are limited to four or more deaths, if you move that number to 3, the number rises by a gigantic margin, and most are attributable to handguns.
So I will Agree with Kennedy, that we should treat guns like alcohol. I also agree we need to crack down on drunk driving, which has impacted many of my friends and family. If you leave your liquor cabinet unlocked and your kids and their friends get drunk and kill someone, you will be held responsible. The same should apply consistently with guns. Keep them secure, or face legal consequences. Sell to someone who is ineligible (think minor for alcohol), face consequences.
Even with a total AR ban, do we take guns away or just prevent future purchases? Are those purchases limited to new manufactured guns or used market too? Will it be a taking to not allow someone to sell their own property? What will the cost be to collect 20mm+ guns in this country? How many people will fight and kill to keep their guns? Would it be constitutional to ban a gun someone already owns?
It may seem like I am anti-gun. I am not. I am anti-politician (both sides). I get sick of the same disingenuous arguments on both sides. However, I am a proponent for additional background checks (state checks should be done along with federal background checks for every purchase, even private sales). I'm not sure if magazine limitations will do anything, or if an AR ban would either, other than focus the discussion on the "next gun up".
A well functioning society should focus on finding the root cause of violence and focus on it along with other protective measures. It is a less of a "hot-button" political issue, that both parties should get behind. Mental health, drug use and homelessness are big problems. Start there, and keep the process moving to make gun ownership smarter, and move the chains within the realm of what the 2nd Amendment allows. At some point, we may have enough votes to amend the 2nd amendment, until then, let's be logical and move the yardstick where we can.