RE: Vetting and guns. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

BamaD -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/20/2015 7:46:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

There was one guy with a CCW at the community college shooting in Oregon. The reason he did not draw and go after the attacker was because he was afraid (justifiably) of being mistaken as the active shooter and engaged by law enforcement. Stuff like this happens.

This is totally inaccurate, he voluteered to help and the (unarmed) security officer ordered him off the grounds. He keeps repeating this myth that if you use a firearm to stop a shooter the cops will gun you down when they arrive. I find this interesting as they do not just gun down actual shooters but give them a chance to surrender.


Not so in the case of John Crawford III, perhaps due to his race.


I am unfamiliar with that case but it is sop to give them the chance to surrender. If it was me, my gun would be on the ground (as would I) the second the cops showed up.



ifmaz -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/20/2015 7:56:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

There was one guy with a CCW at the community college shooting in Oregon. The reason he did not draw and go after the attacker was because he was afraid (justifiably) of being mistaken as the active shooter and engaged by law enforcement. Stuff like this happens.

This is totally inaccurate, he voluteered to help and the (unarmed) security officer ordered him off the grounds. He keeps repeating this myth that if you use a firearm to stop a shooter the cops will gun you down when they arrive. I find this interesting as they do not just gun down actual shooters but give them a chance to surrender.


Not so in the case of John Crawford III, perhaps due to his race.


I am unfamiliar with that case but it is sop to give them the chance to surrender. If it was me, my gun would be on the ground (as would I) the second the cops showed up.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XYNOTUWfHE

Fast-forward to about 1:24.



BamaD -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/20/2015 8:10:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

There was one guy with a CCW at the community college shooting in Oregon. The reason he did not draw and go after the attacker was because he was afraid (justifiably) of being mistaken as the active shooter and engaged by law enforcement. Stuff like this happens.

This is totally inaccurate, he voluteered to help and the (unarmed) security officer ordered him off the grounds. He keeps repeating this myth that if you use a firearm to stop a shooter the cops will gun you down when they arrive. I find this interesting as they do not just gun down actual shooters but give them a chance to surrender.


Not so in the case of John Crawford III, perhaps due to his race.


I am unfamiliar with that case but it is sop to give them the chance to surrender. If it was me, my gun would be on the ground (as would I) the second the cops showed up.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XYNOTUWfHE

Fast-forward to about 1:24.

I was not questioning your word.



ifmaz -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/20/2015 8:39:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I was not questioning your word.


I didn't mean to imply you had :)



BamaD -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/20/2015 9:01:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I was not questioning your word.


I didn't mean to imply you had :)


Just wanted to make it clear, didn't want you to think I was attacking you.



ifmaz -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/20/2015 9:11:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I was not questioning your word.


I didn't mean to imply you had :)


Just wanted to make it clear, didn't want you to think I was attacking you.


... do we have to hug now?



BamaD -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/20/2015 9:18:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I was not questioning your word.


I didn't mean to imply you had :)


Just wanted to make it clear, didn't want you to think I was attacking you.


... do we have to hug now?

I don't think that is required.
As soon as I started the link I knew about the case.
He was swated.
And I don't think he ever knew the cops were talking to him.
The guy who called in that he was running around with a gun threatening people set this up.



mnottertail -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/21/2015 8:18:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

No, whoever said it, taxing a right does not make it other than a right.

You pay to go to the courthouse to hear a redress of your grievances. Lawyers aside.



Good point. I'll have to remember you said that on the next voter ID thread.when you libs start bitchin about the poor having to to pay 5 bucks for an ID [8D]



Nutsuckers can remember any old shit they want, the nutsuckers can bitch about it all they want. They are fucking shitbreathers and always have been. There is a constitutional prohibition against one of these things and I have elucidated it repeatedly to the nutsuckers who dont know a fucking thing about our country's constitution, do you think nutsuckers can guess which one is forbidden?

Doubt it.



ifmaz -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/21/2015 9:09:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
An assault weapon could be firearm that looks cosmetically like an assault rifle. And an assault weapon could actually be an assault rifle. Context is always important. And on this forum, I've caught gun nuts interchanging assault weapons with assault rifles. So everyone is to blame for that. But realize to, that most people in the world are not fully 'up to date' with which rifle carries which ammo.


It is the anti-rights crowd who coined the term "assault rifle" and "assault weapon", and now "Paris-style assault weapon".

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.vpc.org/studies/awacont.htm
Handgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons ... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.


The public (this would include you) has been manipulated into believing a semi-automatic rifle, because it cosmetically resembles a military fully-automatic rifle, is deadlier than a bolt-action rifle firing the same caliber projectile. We've talked before about how you feel President Obama and/or the NRA have used fear tactics to sell. How does it feel knowing you have been lied to in order to push an agenda?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
My learning of which gun takes which ammo came from Counter Strike (back when it was a mod for Half Life). Nothing like buying the HK MP-5 and learning (during the firefight and reloading) that I bought 5.56 for a completely different gun......


You're basing your vast knowledge of firearms on your experience with video games?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz
I very highly doubt this loon had 10 fully automatic weapons as they're usually sold for $25k+.


Why not? Could be possible. Not something to make a bet in Vegas (except for the long shot bet).


I understand you feel the need to be arbitrarily contrary. The sort of people that hoard aren't the sort of people that have a lot of money. $250,000 is quite a bit of money to spend on rifles, especially when those rifles are seldom used.



mnottertail -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/21/2015 9:13:20 AM)

I really don't care. But I gotta wonder at people who need cosmetically portrayed military weapons. Why not just join the military instead of being a wannabe? Playing army is way out of their agegroup.

Tha's all I wonder at.



ifmaz -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/21/2015 9:27:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I really don't care.


Then why post anything? Why not retreat to some other thread to post about felching and nutsuckers and whatever else it is you ramble on about?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
But I gotta wonder at people who need cosmetically portrayed military weapons. Why not just join the military instead of being a wannabe? Playing army is way out of their agegroup.

Tha's all I wonder at.


I could tell you the AR15 is a very modular platform, they are reliable and durable, they are fairly inexpensive, that machinery retooling wouldn't be necessary for manufacturers (apart from the semi-auto sear), but you don't care because you think anyone that has an AR15 is playing "wannabe army".



BamaD -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/21/2015 11:50:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I really don't care. But I gotta wonder at people who need cosmetically portrayed military weapons. Why not just join the military instead of being a wannabe? Playing army is way out of their agegroup.

Tha's all I wonder at.

My son owns a .22 Mosberg that looks like a AR. Why? because at the time he was getting a .22 it was the best buy avaliable. The AR apperance was not relevant, although he does like the pistol grip. None of the reasons you give. Generally it is because of the functionallity, like the pistol grip, not some wanna be like the militart fantasy you wish to ascribe to them.



Lucylastic -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/21/2015 6:10:04 PM)

So, hey guys, back to the topic, how come people on the no fly list can buy guns freely
...?



kdsub -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/21/2015 6:16:21 PM)

AND the NRA has come out against a proposed law to take the guns from those on the terrorist list... they say there could be a mistake that could deny someone a GUN... poor things. Why not support the law that protects the majority and if needed provide support to those who believe they are wrongly denied a weapon permit?

Butch



BamaD -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/21/2015 9:26:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

So, hey guys, back to the topic, how come people on the no fly list can buy guns freely
...?

Because that information isn't put in to the background check system.
Most likely because you need a conviction.
Of course far to often information that is supposed to be there isn't, case in point Charleston. If the proper information had been in the system he couldn't have gotten the gun.



BamaD -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/21/2015 9:53:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

AND the NRA has come out against a proposed law to take the guns from those on the terrorist list... they say there could be a mistake that could deny someone a GUN... poor things. Why not support the law that protects the majority and if needed provide support to those who believe they are wrongly denied a weapon permit?

Butch

Not because they want terrorists to have guns but because of the caprisious nature of what it takes to be on the list, and because they depend on names and not identities. Inevitable that the wrong people would be flagged.



ifmaz -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/22/2015 2:22:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

AND the NRA has come out against a proposed law to take the guns from those on the terrorist list... they say there could be a mistake that could deny someone a GUN... poor things. Why not support the law that protects the majority and if needed provide support to those who believe they are wrongly denied a weapon permit?

Butch


Have you read the proposed law? It's incredibly vague, saying anyone on the US No Fly List (among other lists) would be denied their constitutional rights without due process. We're all familiar with cases wherein babies are yanked from planes for being on a no fly list but now you wish to deny those same people their right to due process? How does one end up on this No Fly List in the first place? Nobody knows for sure and the proposed law doesn't specify.

The media has, of course, spun this as "the NRA wants to arm terrorists" when the opposite is true: the NRA does not want firearms to be used for unlawful purposes but does want safeguards around anything that would deny someone their constitutional rights.



Termyn8or -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/22/2015 3:29:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

So, hey guys, back to the topic, how come people on the no fly list can buy guns freely
...?


Because they have not committed a crime.

Have any idea what it takes to get on that list ? Having the wrong bumper sticker, mentioning the Constitution to a cop, hell, the shit I've posted on the internet.

All not crimes nor even illegal.

T^T



crazyml -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/22/2015 4:23:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

AND the NRA has come out against a proposed law to take the guns from those on the terrorist list... they say there could be a mistake that could deny someone a GUN... poor things. Why not support the law that protects the majority and if needed provide support to those who believe they are wrongly denied a weapon permit?

Butch

Not because they want terrorists to have guns but because of the caprisious nature of what it takes to be on the list, and because they depend on names and not identities. Inevitable that the wrong people would be flagged.


This.

The whole point of the 2nd, whether you think it is right or not, is to prevent a government from simply disarming the population. It you allow a government to disarm terrorist suspects.you want to be really fucking careful about the process the govt uses when it decides who goes on the list...



Termyn8or -> RE: Vetting and guns. (11/22/2015 4:39:34 AM)

Actually, those against the death penalty should be against this vetting as well.

I support the death penalty but only in cases where there is no doubt. The court system is too fucked up anymore to trust with peoples' lives. In fact it always has, they executed a 12 year old kid who was probably innocent.

I have also read of people on no fly lists for no reason. Just having the same name as a Arab can do it. I heard one was like a college professor for years, I think he went to Hawaii and somehow couldn't get back because he was all the sudden on the no fly list. Something like that.

I guess he could just get a gun and hijack a plane to the mainland eh ? Yeah, that fucking paranoid. If you can't even have fucking nail clippers on a plane, why bother with a no fly list ? What, some people are like Chuck Norris and could hijack the thing anyway ? Come on.

And that is one thing people do not consider. Criminals are TOUGH. you can be in good shape and they will still kick your ass because they know how to fight. That is the life they lead and their profession. Spend 20 years in the joint working out, then I can just pick you up by the neck and you shall give me the bank card and the PIN and I will tie you up and rape your daughter.

How would I do that with a bullethole in my head ?

Get the point ?

T^T



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875