What's new
By:

Thoughts and Prayers

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
JustTheTip said:
Thriller, what do you consider to be common sense or sensible gun control?

I think he might have me on ignore, so if anybody else would like to ask him, that would be appreciated. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Our laws seem to work pretty well...
 
There's this little constitutional amendment that gets in the way of all these solutions. That's the place to start, thriller, if you're serious. And what do you think your chances are on that? I mean, you've got the majority, right?
 
rare144 said:
did I politely exit this argument? then have scum suckers start quoting me?

anyone else want on the ignore list?
Click to expand...

Mmmmm..... scum
 
Bulletproof said:
There's this little constitutional amendment that gets in the way of all these solutions. That's the place to start, thriller, if you're serious. And what do you think your chances are on that? I mean, you've got the majority, right?
Click to expand...

My suggested regulations aren’t contrary to the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment doesn’t say nor suggest that guns should be sold without regulations.

The actual text of the amendment even says that guns and militias should be regulated. Scalia admitted in the last major 2nd amendment case that the SC handled that guns should be regulated and that some shouldn’t be to sold to the public.

Scalia!
 
The Thriller said:
My suggested regulations aren’t contrary to the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment doesn’t say nor suggest that guns should be sold without regulations.

The actual text of the amendment even says that guns and militias should be regulated. Scalia admitted in the last major 2nd amendment case that the SC handled that guns should be regulated and that some shouldn’t be to sold to the public.

Scalia!
Click to expand...

You have said we could do what Australia did. We can't. We can't.

That's why I suggest the militia system. Militias would exist outside direct government control. "Well regulated militias" would fit perfectly into our 2nd amendment language. Militias would act as a filter for some of the craziest most radical gun nuts. I believe they would also raise the bar as far as training and discipline. These radicals would also be putting their militia buddies at risk if they abused their gun rights (aka, shooting up public places).

I believe it is an elegant solution that would actually strengthen the deterrent gun rights provide to the public by providing more organized groups who controlled even more powerful arsenals than any individual could. I mean, I think militias could own fully automatic rifles, grenades, and could even attempt to acquire tanks and other large arms. They would have to be certified, would have to have clean records and provide background checks for their members, have safety programs, training programs, etc.. I think it would do everything the 2nd amendment ever intended, but better than it has ever been done.
 
Eenie-Meenie said:
I think a person's life takes precedence over being harassed. The MeToo movement is much about a breakdown in communication between men and women -- this is not to say that men in power don't abuse and sexually harass women. But do you know any guy who doesn't talk differently about sex with their buddies than they do, even with their wives? And if they talked that way in front of a woman who isn't their wife or significant other, they would be charged with sexual harassment.
Click to expand...

That depends on the environment. In one game where a rooster is one of the tokens, the term "****-blocking" was used in mixed company. On the other hand, I don't discuss anything like this at work, even with just men. Men can be offended too, you know.

However, the main point, and question, is why we can't do both. Even if A is more important than B, why not do both A and B?
 
You Aussies here,

Did your country’s govt buy back program of guns that started years ago really work?
 
Wes Mantooth said:
You Aussies here,

Did your country’s govt buy back program of guns that started years ago really work?
Click to expand...

yeah cause it was carrot and stick, you had, cant remember off the top of my head, 12 months lets say to hand in weapons and get paid for them, I believe no questions asked, (exemptions for muskets and what not) but then if you were caught with them afterwards it was prison time. And the law was enforced, for instance if you're a registered gun owner cops can show up at your house and search it to make sure you comply with the law, they can also use sniffer dogs and what not to look for other weapons, I know a couple of people who got into **** this way, they all got fines cause the guns they had were long arms and not hand guns they just got substantial fines. (I suspect them being farmers, mitigated the penalties they faced as well.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: MVP
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top