Opinion Should they ban assault weapons?

Should they ban assault weapons?

  • Total voters
    374
Fawlty said:
That's a direct slope to armed churches, heavily armed stadiums, etc. More escalation. And anybody who wants to talk about a nanny state? Fuck me, now they want to go straight from being against nanny states to being completely for them- but only if the nanny is packing heat! The Israel solution would see our kids, in America mind you, marching around school with armed escorts. It's way out of reality for us, for a number of very obvious reasons. There are the violent fantasies of some very disturbed people, who should be kept away from our children.
Click to expand...

Respecting the rights of the individual to repel threats to themselves and others is the exact opposite of a "Nanny state".

It's good to see you concede that the liberal nanny state is an unfavourable condition to live in.
 
Greoric said:
Fundamentally, I think this comes down to a differing appraisal about both what the government is capable of doing both effectively and potentially maleficently.

Like I said, let's start breaking this bitch up. You and I have no business being presided over by the same governance.
Click to expand...
I'm not stopping you from seceding lol.
 
Assault weapons?


10-22-RB.jpg



1297606_02_tactical_ruger_10_22_640.jpg
 
Gregolian said:
The 60 something times the local cops went to his house between like 2012 and 2015 is a good place to start... and why the FBI dropped the ball, again, on a warning about him in January the same way the fucking Air Force fucked it up with the guy in Texas.
Click to expand...
Yeah, give them more resources, and codify a mandatory response that is more specific and more accountable. If there are policy cracks, patch those first. But if they run into legal problems taking guns from kids like that, you'll need to patch the law.
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
Yeah, I've addressed that a few times and you refuse to move the conversation forward on that front. No worries.
Click to expand...
Huh?
Then maybe you should have highlighted what you agreed with in her post and we'd be talking about that instead. :D
Click to expand...
I decided to highlight what I disagreed with and you reflexively defended her, probably because she agrees with you on the issue of guns.
I defend every part of the Bill of Rights. Vigorously and without compromise. I defend following the Constitution, even when I don't like it. If you think it's just the 2nd then maybe pay more attention in the future.

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/free-speech.3060255/

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/civil-forfeiture-and-you.2818235/
Click to expand...
Okay then, then maybe call out censorship since that violates the first amendment.
 
deadshot138 said:
At 15, AK 47, M4, anything similar, yes
Click to expand...

LOL

Anything similar? So any rifle that discharges 1 round per pull of the trigger and has the capacity to take magazines. Probably anything with a pistol grip and bayonet lug perhaps?

Gotcha. I see where you are going with this.
 
Kafir-kun said:
Huh?

I decided to highlight what I disagreed with and you reflexively defended her, probably because she agrees with you on the issue of guns.

Okay then, then maybe call out censorship since that violates the first amendment.
Click to expand...

Are you getting pissy? :eek::D

Pretty simple. I tried to talk about dynamics and you did nothing but repeat a simple claim while ignoring the incremental effect your studies show that works more against your position than for it. You couldn't say anything to discourage the notion that it's one of the ingredients in the soup. Just repeated a few times that since it clearly wasn't the main cause it shouldn't be looked at.

Yeah, you chose to enter it into the conversation while saying it shouldn't be talked about while ignoring my effort to steer you towards talking about what you do (if anything) agree with. If you don't see the humor in that so be it.

Like my free speech thread I linked? Or is there another recent thread about censorship that I failed to comment in?
 
jgarner said:
Didn't most of these schools already have armed security? The fact is the officer is usually on the wrong side of the school and is no member of DEVGRU that can help single handedly take on an armed teenager with an AR-15 down hallways with no cover. By the time he gets there, the damage is done anyways. These kids are dead in a matter of minutes.
Click to expand...

I not hear about this schools with armed security. I dont think they need to be Seal Team 6 to be effective. Afterall, when an armed gunman appears the public has to rely on a force that is considerably less proficient at combat. Even the airports rely basically on armed security guards (TSA). An armed guard may just be enough deterrent.

I was actually going to start a thread titled "next victims of school shooting have no one else to blame" because by now they should all have some means of defense whether it is armed guards, or everyone is packing heat including students.
 
Last edited:
Stoic1 said:
LOL

Anything similar? So any rifle that discharges 1 round per pull of the trigger and has the capacity to take magazines. Probably anything with a pistol grip and bayonet lug perhaps?

Gotcha. I see where you are going with this.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the barrel shroud. Makes it at least 3x more deadly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,962
Messages
55,457,343
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top