Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but paid users have great benefits. Paid member benefits:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2024 SX, MX, and SMX series (regularly $30).
The Shop
Rule #1 of anything in life: Don't underestimate your opponent.
I’ll trust Newman or Fasteddy on gun issues way before anyone else on this board...why? They actually know what they are talking about.
Heck, I would bet any victim of a tyrannical govermental genocide would have loved to have an AR-15 or 9mm at their side.
Your impression is federal authorities are always good. (Which I know you don’t believe given your “imagine he was a black man” implication).
Lets be honest. A gun kills. Whatever you want to define it as: “peashooter” or “assualt rifle killing machine”. If you are down a hallway, there is virtually little difference when that bullet hits. In fact, one could come up with various advantages the Glock would have over the AR. Concealment being the biggest one in my opinion.
Carrying a concealed 9mm at all times when my C-130 was outside of the continental US.
I think it is time for serious dialogue about how our current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is simply allowing access to killing machines that are being turned upon our fellow citizens.
When is enough “enough”?
No more “lolz”.
No more “lmao”.
No more “you don’t understand what an assault rife is”.
No more “you don’t even know what “AR” stands for”.
That shit is fodder.
Loud exhaust pipes are not really tolerated anymore because most people understand they are obnoxious, and they don’t make a bike “faster”.
This change largely came from within.
The gun crowd needs to stand up and make the same kind of introspective conclusion, or it will be legislated for them.
Gun advocates, you are on the clock.
I think though that this partly cuts directly to the problem many on the pro gun side have. The distinction IS important and should be made - otherwise do we then say that the currently much tougher restrictions on true select fire assault rifles are pointless? They are either two different things or they aren't. For those that fail to make the distinction (despite being corrected numerous times) smacks of ideologically driven motives - something that is inherently unfair and unbalanced, and hence scares a lot of people. I'm not an American gun owner but I think this is likely what many fear. I know that that's what I fear here, not just with my access to firearms but many many other things also...
In effect what people are really saying when they want to ban the AR 15 is that they want to ban ALL semi-automatic centrefire rifles. Surely that can only be the ultimate conclusion because to single out one type of self loader makes zero sense?
By failing to remove emotion from the subject, educate themselves and carefully apply language; the anti-gun fraternity and the left are simultaneously both the NRAs biggest enemy and biggest block toward sensible change. They are as bad as the extremes on the other side because they will not keep ideology out of it. Consequently they can't be trusted to act fairly and I think a lot of people know this.
IMO, there is still a lot that can be done.
I realize that I am in a minority, but I trust my government (because I think we have as close to a "free election" process as there is).
I also have no problem paying my taxes. I know that my current standard of living is equal to, or greater than, kings have experienced in their rule.
I also love my fellow countryman, whether we agree politically or not.
With that, I think we should take the fear and romanticism of "guns" out of the equation, and deal with the facts.
Crazy will always be out there, and we will not solve it by blaming the mental health field. (Imagine that you are the "government's mental health evaluator, and your determination decides whether people get access to guns. The moment you say "no", now that person wants to kill you. The moment you say "yes", and that person does wrong, now you are at fault. NOBODY will take that job. Nobody.)
People in the United States do not make change until they feel it in their pocket books. Take smoking. We have been told for years (since teh 1970's at least. Before that, Big Tobacco had studies and lawyers telling us that smoking was not all that bad for us. We know differently.) that smoking was bad. Did we quit? No. Not until the sin taxes imposed upon them forced people to make a decision. That decision was not based on education or information, but by money coming out of their pocket.
We want guards at our schools just like a jewelry shop has? Fine. Pay for it by taxes on guns and ammo. A "user fee", so to speak.
I also think that Australia has shown that if the people decide that their fellow citizens are more important than guns, a voluntary relinquishment of arms can and will work. But we have to make a collective decision that we are all in this together.
If that is not acceptable, I also think that an armory may provide some assistance. When I was in the military, and asked to carry concealed weapons, the crew bus would stop at the armory as the last stop before we headed to the plane. When we landed at the next base, when the crew bus came to pick us up, the first stop we made was back at the armory to turn the gun in.
Personally, I think that EVERY household should have the right to have a fire arm within the hom for protection. I don't find everybody running around town with a gun to be all that safe. Guns at home good, guns in cars for road ragers bad. If you want to have 57 guns, you can have 57 guns, but aside from that one gun at the house for protection, the rest are stored at an armory that can be checked out and back in, just like we did it when I was in the military.
I also think this needs to be national legislation. When one jurisdiction (Gunland) allows the proliferation of gun ownership, but the neighboring jurisdiction (Hippyville) outlaws such ownership, all somebody has to do is drive the 5 miles to Gunland to get what they want and then drive right back to Hippyville with their guns. That whole "But aren't guns outlawed in Hippyville?" such a juvenile argument.
This is just throwing noodles on the wall. Like I said earlier, current conditions are becoming untenable. If you want to keep your guns, you should be working hard to get out in front of this with universally acceptable solutions. Continuing to belittle others because they are not "gun experts" is not a big platform to be standing upon.
It will soon fall from the weight it is being asked to carry.
Pit Row
Brave, and with all due respect, a bit foolish. With that said, you may trust them now, certainly I feel our government is in a little bit better place now then it has been even if our President is a bit impulsive and crude, but is your trust indefinitely in to the future? That is to say, given the tools (through legislation, modification of rights, unconstitutional rulings, etc.), such as heavily infringing the second amendment, that the trust of our government being good will still be there? Maybe not in your lifetime, maybe not the next generations lifetime, but further?
With that, I think we should take the fear and romanticism of "guns" out of the equation, and deal with the facts.
Crazy will always be out there, and we will not solve it by blaming the mental health field.
I disagree. Every, and I mean just about EVERY, terrible tragedy at the hand of some crazy with a gun is due to mental instability, largely accounted by poor environmental surroundings during childhood development and that addition of a unethical pharmaceutical industry. Bringing FAMILY, back into the picture, putting an emphasis on marriage and stable upbringings of children is what will help very much more than banning an AR-15, which in the world of rifles is just stick among stones.
I also think that Australia has shown that if the people decide that their fellow citizens are more important than guns, a voluntary relinquishment of arms can and will work. But we have to make a collective decision that we are all in this together.
You have been mislead. No statistic (other than no reoccurring mass shooting) can prove it helped. In fact violent crime rose, while gun deaths relatively remains unchanged. Australia had little problem with mass shootings to begin with, let alone gun crime, so comparing their world statistic with U.S. is redundant.
Cashin' checks
Who the hell put him in charge?
http://katu.com/news/local/warrenton-woman-noelle-moor-arrested-for-coo…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5527287/Woman-denied-bond-tosse…
If shiftfaced doesn't believe/agree with "X"then there should be a tax /fee attached to it .
Post a reply to: Another school shooting