Jump to content

Gun Talk

VL-16

By VL-16
in Squadron Bar

 Share

Recommended Posts

HossHarris Gray Beard

HossHarris

Posted
Posted

So...you prefer convicted felons maintain their access to firearms?

Or you trust them to follow the law and turn in their firearms if they owned them prior to the conviction?

Neither.

When you make the choice to be a felon, you give up certain rights. That's when confiscation should happen. That's who should be on a list.

I have also, unfortunately, lost all my firearms in a tragic boating incident on lake mead so none of this really applies to me ....

  • Upvote 2
  • Replies 6.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Pancake
Pancake

Really?! Joking, right?! I am all about the second amendment, but is all of that necessary? I'm curious of the purpose of such extensive firepower. Obviously, firearm ownership lines have to b

Pancake
Pancake

And I'm exercising my right to the First Amendment which I have defended (and continue to) for the last 17 years. I disagree with your view of the Second Amendment.

M2
M2

nsplayr, you're weak exit is typical Cartman-esque liberal Democrat, if the other side doesn't capitulate to your line of logic, you're going home. Way to show your ass! Maybe if Obama/Biden wer

Posted Images

StoleIt Gray Beard

StoleIt

Posted
Posted (edited)

Jesus Fucking Christ. Where do these people come from?

You obviously aren't in this thread enough to know my stance on firearms.

You surprised me on this one man...sad really.

By your logic, the government should confiscate your firearms because someone in your family 'may' becoming mentally unstable, your children 'may' get a hold of one of your firearms, somebody (a previously convicted felon) 'may' break into your house and steel your firearms (the excuse Chicago officials used for years to ban handguns btw)...

Where's the line? Why not do the same thing with alcohol?

As for convicted felons...so if one of your parents was a convicted felon and you allowed them to take residence with you and in your home, you'd be fine with the government coming to your door to take YOUR firearms away? What if your wife went to the doctor for depression and they labeled it as 'mental illness', what then? That's essentially what you're saying if you agree with what happened in the article. It's basically guilt by association.

Yea, I can see this easily becoming a stepping stone toward wider confiscation, which I definitely have issue with.

I definitely haven't put enough thought into it, I'll be the first to admit. But my gut response was what I wrote. Not a terrible idea, but definitely in need of tweaking and very clear rules.

Neither.

When you make the choice to be a felon, you give up certain rights. That's when confiscation should happen. That's who should be on a list.

I have also, unfortunately, lost all my firearms in a tragic boating incident on lake mead so none of this really applies to me ....

That's really the part I'm leaning toward.

Obviously, mental health is tricky to diagnose and very easy to cross the line on infringing rights. But I think for felons this is a non-issue and should be enforced.

In other news...when will gun prices drop so I can finish my 14.5 AR w/pinned break (thanks Illinois for no SBR) super lightweight build? Thank God I got my polymer lower before this thing went full retard.

Edited by StoleIt
HeloDude Gray Beard

HeloDude

Posted
Posted
In other news, I don't know if anyone out there still has AK74's after all the boating accidents, but Buds has 1080rd spam cans of Russian surplus 5.45x39 FMJ steel in stock for $230.

Way overpriced man--like most of Bud's items since the scare began, much worse than other online firearms dealers. And this is coming from someone who has given Buds a lot of business in the past.

I was able to get these cans for $135 from Sportsmans Guide before the scare and even AimSurplus has had them for $170-180 the last 1-2 months. Obviously if you need/want the 5.45 go for it as it's in stock. Just trying to add some perspective.

  • Upvote 2
Fuzz Gray Beard

Fuzz

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hmm I'm slightly on the fence with this one.

If Adam Lanza's mom didn't have any firearms was a responsible gun owner then the kids ability to shoot up the school would have been greatly reduced.

FIFY

Confiscating personal owned firearms from diagnosed or court determined mentally incompetent people, while it has the ability to become more doesn't bother me all that much. However, confiscating someones guns because someone's grandmother lives with them is off her rocker more than Nsplyr, or their kid has anger issues it absolutely ridiculous.

As for the mental health issues, I think to be able to confiscate weapons there needs to be a judicial or legal review process before the police can confiscate.

Edited by Scaredfuzz21
  • Upvote 2
M2 Gray Beard

M2

Posted
Posted
So...you prefer convicted felons maintain their access to firearms? Or you trust them to follow the law and turn in their firearms if they owned them prior to the conviction?

Sorry pal, but I too think you are off the mark on this one. I have an autistic son, does that mean the government has a right to determine if I should be able to possess firearms? No.

Plus, such measures rarely stop intended individuals from carrying out their deeds. Like most firearms legislation, it only hampers the law-abiding citizen, a fact that liberals conveniently and continually seem to ignore.

I was just having this discussion with a cop buddy last night (well, after we got done talking about his new duty S&W M&P .40). He isn't a "gun guy," other than his duty weapon he has a small Glock for home defense but he (and every other LEO I know in this great state) is adamantly in favor of armed, law-abiding citizens. He likes the fact that there are individuals like myself who are probably more proficient and train more than he does also out on the street willing to help intervene to save the lives of others. It helps keep society even safer.

No, registration and confiscation are the actions of the Nazis, Soviets and other suppressed societies; there are some risks involved in living in a free and armed society and given that the benefits are far greater I (and most people) am willing to accept them for a better life for all.

As I always say, the answer is not less guns but more. If that were the case in Colorado, Connecticut and other areas where these mass shootings occur, there would at least be a deterrent to them. Disarming people is not going to prevent such tragedies from happening, it will only up the body count...

  • Upvote 6
HU&W Gray Beard

HU&W

Posted
Posted (edited)

Sen Ted Cruz and Sen Dianne Feinstein argue over selective application of constitutional amendments.

Edited by HU&W
  • Upvote 1
HeloDude Gray Beard

HeloDude

Posted
Posted (edited)

This just keeps on getting better...

Giffords.png

The latter source was present when the photograph was taken, and said that Giffords had requested it for campaign purposes during October 2010.

"We were told she wanted to toughen her image. She asked to come out and she wanted to shoot a rifle. She had one of our guys out there to show her how to shoot an AR-15."

Now, I know that shortly after the picture was taken she was shot and almost killed...with a handgun (same type (handgun) of firearm her husband just purchased the other day, along with the AR-15). It was no secret before she got shot that some crazy person can get a hold of a handgun, AR-15, whatever, and do some damage if they choose to...just like it's no secret that it can happen very easily again. So if a few tragic instances over several years can cause someone to change their mind about a Right, then I question why that person ever supported that Right in the first place. I don't have to wait to get hit by a drunk driver to know that I'm against drunk driving. And even if I was ever hit by a drunk driver, I would never want to ban alcohol.

Edited by HeloDude
Buddy Spike Gray Beard

Buddy Spike

Posted
Posted

More brilliance from Good Ole' Uncle Joe

“For example, a fugitive from justice can still buy a gun legally unless they cross a state line,” Biden said. “The one person I don’t want to have a weapon is a fugitive from justice.

“I rather have an ex-felon have access to a weapon than someone fleeing the justice system,” Biden said.

https://cnsnews.com/news/article/biden-i-d-rather-have-ex-felon-have-access-weapon-fugitive

Liberalism is the philosophy of the terminally stupid.

HeloDude Gray Beard

HeloDude

Posted
Posted

More brilliance from Good Ole' Uncle Joe

https://cnsnews.com/n...weapon-fugitive

Liberalism is the philosophy of the terminally stupid.

-FBI website already states how a fugitive will fail an NICS background check.

-As for private sales, ATF website already says a fugitive from justice is already somebody who you can not legally make a private sale to.

So we already have laws against fugitives legally acquiring a firearm, whether from a licensed dealer or a private seller. Passing more laws will not stop the wrong person from getting a firearm as there are already laws against it.

  • Upvote 1
M2 Gray Beard

M2

Posted
Posted

Ted Cruz kicks ass! Makes me even prouder to be a Texan (if that is even possible!)...

The man isn't really a "gun guy" from what I understand, can't find pics of him hunting or shooting like many Texas politicians; he just understands and respects the right to be armed and is willing to fight those who want to take that away.

All I know if the man ever makes it down here to San Antonio, he won't get the chance to pay for his own drinks!

  • Upvote 2
Fuzz Gray Beard

Fuzz

Posted
Posted

Ted Cruz kicks ass! Makes me even prouder to be a Texan (if that is even possible!)...

He's technically a Canuck, but seems like he found some common sense :flag_waving:

338skybolt Crew Dawg

338skybolt

Posted
Posted

I'm glad to see some in the GOP at least trying to somewhat get back to The Constitution.

That antiquated piece of paper that needs to be re-written because it no longer applies to current society (i.e. liberalism)? \sarcasm

matmacwc Gray Beard

matmacwc

Posted
Posted

Hey now, don't overload our liberal members with facts! We should deal in emotion and random elitist intellectual (self proclaimed) thoughts.

HU&W Gray Beard

HU&W

Posted
Posted

I'm wondering how he ever zero'd it in. Don't tell me a SWAT officer is using a weapon he hasn't sighted in... :nob::banghead:

Probably why he's got the peep sight flipped up. "Can't stand those guys. Make me put this stupid scope/sight thing on here and it never works right. I'm just going to use the iron sights."

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...