guns
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Correction, 2014.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Thank you for the correction.
oldngray
nowhere special
Of course he has the knee jerk gun control reaction. Which would have done nothing for the situation in Dallas. A simple hunting rifle makes the best sniper rifle. Not "assault" rifles or handguns or anything else he wants to ban. It just indicates his intention to eventually ban all guns in civilian hands if possible.
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Also not a word on the African-American cop that killed a 6 year old white boy with autism yesterday.
Hmmm?
I wonder why?
Hmmm?
I wonder why?
Sportello
Well-Known Member
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
I never said the government was coming for my arsenal. Nor am I paranoid.
Up until last year, the Oregon legislature maintained a very slim ( one vote) pro-gun majority in the Senate that was able to prevent anti-gun bills from being passed.
That majority is now gone. We have an anti-gun majority in both the House and the Senate as well as an anti-gun Governor for the first time in decades.
I dont foresee confiscations but I do foresee a bunch of silly and useless California-style "feel-good" laws banning the sale of high capacity magazines and banning cosmetic features like pistol grips or bayonet lugs on semi-automatic rifles. The new laws wont save lives but they will give a warm and fuzzy feeling of safety to ignorant liberals who learned everything they know about guns from watching "A-Team" when they were children, and that is what really counts.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
...or it could be that we don't want to live next door to Rambo...
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
History lesson:
50 years ago this August, Charles Whitman killed 16 people and wounded 49 from the tower at the University of Texas in Austin.
His weapon? A bolt-action hunting rifle with a magazine capacity of 3 rounds. Yes, 3 rounds.
The death toll would have been far higher, but for the fact that about 20 minutes into the massacre some of the students and other civilians nearby began shooting back at him with their hunting rifles. They failed to hit him but the return fire forced him to duck behind the wall and shoot thru the rain gutters which severely limited his visibility and field of fire. The Austin Police Dept did not have a SWAT team and the only weapons in their arsenal were revolvers and shotguns, which were useless for engaging a sniper. The return fire provided by the armed civilians gave police the ability to safely enter the building, from where they were able to make their way to the top floor and kill him at close range with shotguns. So yes, there actually HAS been a mass shooting incident where lives were saved by good guys with guns.
50 years ago this August, Charles Whitman killed 16 people and wounded 49 from the tower at the University of Texas in Austin.
His weapon? A bolt-action hunting rifle with a magazine capacity of 3 rounds. Yes, 3 rounds.
The death toll would have been far higher, but for the fact that about 20 minutes into the massacre some of the students and other civilians nearby began shooting back at him with their hunting rifles. They failed to hit him but the return fire forced him to duck behind the wall and shoot thru the rain gutters which severely limited his visibility and field of fire. The Austin Police Dept did not have a SWAT team and the only weapons in their arsenal were revolvers and shotguns, which were useless for engaging a sniper. The return fire provided by the armed civilians gave police the ability to safely enter the building, from where they were able to make their way to the top floor and kill him at close range with shotguns. So yes, there actually HAS been a mass shooting incident where lives were saved by good guys with guns.
Last edited:
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
If you lived next door to me or came and visited me in my home you would have no idea that I owned any firearms at all. And for the record, I do not own an AR-15 or an AK or any other gun that fits the description of an "assault rifle."
I do, however, own a Ruger Mini-Thirty. It is stainless steel and has a nice, harmless looking wooden hunting-rifle type stock so it doesnt look scary or icky, even to an anti-gun liberal. The fact that it is a semi-automatic with a detachable magazine that fires the same ammo as an AK-47 and is the functional equivalent of one is irrelevant to the ignorant liberal; all they care about is that it isnt black.
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
I'll say it again - what should do about gun violence?
I'm inclined to agree that most proposed legislation would do nothing. It wouldn't have stopped the Dallas and Orlando shooters, for instance.
Republicans refuse to have meaningful discussions about the subject at all, so we just have 'feel-good' legislation that's probably useless and won't pass anyway.
Right now, we're doing nothing, and it's not working.
I'm inclined to agree that most proposed legislation would do nothing. It wouldn't have stopped the Dallas and Orlando shooters, for instance.
Republicans refuse to have meaningful discussions about the subject at all, so we just have 'feel-good' legislation that's probably useless and won't pass anyway.
Right now, we're doing nothing, and it's not working.
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Or shoots 30 rounds in half a second.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Recent tragedies notwithstanding, the fact of the matter is that annual gun deaths in the USA have actually decreased every year since 1991, with an overall reduction of over 45%. So the argument could be made that what we are doing actually IS working. 45% means that there were almost TWICE as many annual gun deaths in the early 90's than we see today. That is a huge number.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Part of the problem is simply perception.
Way more people were getting killed by guns in the early 90's than today, but in the early 90's there were no smart phones, no YouTube, no 24/7 live streaming news, no Facebook, and no Internet as we understand it today. So there were more shootings but less visibility and immediate exposure to them.
Way more people were getting killed by guns in the early 90's than today, but in the early 90's there were no smart phones, no YouTube, no 24/7 live streaming news, no Facebook, and no Internet as we understand it today. So there were more shootings but less visibility and immediate exposure to them.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Democrats refuse to have a meaningful discussion either. They just want more bans, more restrictions and more laws that criminals wont obey anyway.
The definition of a good compromise is that it has something that both sides want and it also has something that pisses both sides off.
I would be willing to have a discussion about some sort of licensing and background check and training requirement as a prerequisite to owning a gun ( assuming that said license was "shall-issue") in exchange for "shall-issue" concealed carry permits in all 50 states and full reciprocity for said permits.
Unfortunately, most liberals would oppose this plan because they only want to take rights away without giving anything in return.
"Shall issue" completely ignores the NRA's insistence that this is all about mental health.
Similar threads
