Page 34 of 39 FirstFirst ... 243233343536 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 381

Thread: Gun Control

  1. #331
    Supporting Member boozehound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Cherry Hill, NJ
    Posts
    6,554
    Quote Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
    How about we just go with "weapon specifically designed to quickly kill a lot of people with a high level of efficiency." I guess there are guns that can do that that are technically not assault rifles, and we want to be sure and include them.
    That's how I feel. I'm not going to engage with our resident pedant about the specific nomenclature, nor am I a firearms expert.

    Bonus points to him for working in the talking point 'define an assault' rifle when / where it's not particularly relevant to the point I was making in the second paragraph, which is that a lot of gun enthusiasts fetishize guns to the point that political ads are being run featuring candidates posing with their arsenals. Which is some some bizarre shit. I don't care if it's an 'assault rifle' or some other gun, if you are taking pictures with it you have an unhealthy attachment IMO.
    Eat Donuts!

  2. #332
    Hall of Famer xu82's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    12,211
    Quote Originally Posted by boozehound View Post
    That's how I feel. I'm not going to engage with our resident pedant about the specific nomenclature, nor am I a firearms expert.

    Bonus points to him for working in the talking point 'define an assault' rifle when / where it's not particularly relevant to the point I was making in the second paragraph, which is that a lot of gun enthusiasts fetishize guns to the point that political ads are being run featuring candidates posing with their arsenals. Which is some some bizarre shit. I don't care if it's an 'assault rifle' or some other gun, if you are taking pictures with it you have an unhealthy attachment IMO.
    Brian Kemp, Governor of Georgia, ran commercials in his election campaign with a shot gun……and a young man who wanted to date one of his daughters. Some might call it an attempt at humor. I find it disturbing, as did many other.

    https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...-daughters.hln

    He got elected.

  3. #333
    Supporting Member paulxu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    20,260
    If Greitens gets elected in Missouri, it may be time to re-locate from that state.
    ...he went up late, and I was already up there.

  4. #334
    When just one isnt enough X-band '01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The Overlook Hotel
    Posts
    14,606
    Then again, even the late Todd Akin couldn't get elected in Missouri.

  5. #335
    Supporting Member GoMuskies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    34,312
    Missouri is great except for every single thing about it.

  6. #336
    Supporting Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,984
    Quote Originally Posted by GoMuskies View Post
    Missouri is great except for every single thing about it.
    It has the one quality that every state needs, it isn't kansas.
    "If our season was based on A-10 awards, there’d be a lot of empty space up in the rafters of the Cintas Center." - Chris Mack

  7. #337
    Supporting Member paulxu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    20,260
    Oops. Shots fired.
    ...he went up late, and I was already up there.

  8. #338
    Senior Strange Brew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Denver, Co
    Posts
    6,255
    Quote Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
    How about we just go with "weapon specifically designed to quickly kill a lot of people with a high level of efficiency." I guess there are guns that can do that that are technically not assault rifles, and we want to be sure and include them.

    And you're right. The amendment had zero to do with hunting. The primary concern was that a state, or group of states, might invade another state to increase its power and push its agenda. They did not want the people of any particular state to be forced to disarm. That’s why it specially states a “well regulates militia.” It wasn't put into the original Constitution because this was not initially seen as a concern, and every state had gun laws written into their own state constitutions anyway.

    And Thomas Jefferson banned guns at the University of Virginia. So this crap about the actual Founders not wanting any sort of regulation when it came to guns is just that. Crap.
    What were the Colonist defending at Lexington/Concord? And why was it important?

    UVA was private land at the time and could do what it wanted.
    Last edited by Strange Brew; 06-22-2022 at 09:24 PM.
    Official XUHoops Resident Legal Scholar.
    (Do not take this seriously)

  9. #339
    Senior Strange Brew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Denver, Co
    Posts
    6,255
    Quote Originally Posted by boozehound View Post
    That's how I feel. I'm not going to engage with our resident pedant about the specific nomenclature, nor am I a firearms expert.

    Bonus points to him for working in the talking point 'define an assault' rifle when / where it's not particularly relevant to the point I was making in the second paragraph, which is that a lot of gun enthusiasts fetishize guns to the point that political ads are being run featuring candidates posing with their arsenals. Which is some some bizarre shit. I don't care if it's an 'assault rifle' or some other gun, if you are taking pictures with it you have an unhealthy attachment IMO.
    No kidding you’re not. But you should at least have a basic understanding of what you want to ban/take away from others…
    Official XUHoops Resident Legal Scholar.
    (Do not take this seriously)

  10. #340
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    10,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange Brew View Post
    What were the Colonist defending at Lexington/Concord? And why was it important?

    UVA was private land at the time and could do what it wanted.
    Not sure where you’re going with this, but it was the first battle of the Revolutionary War, and I guess it was the result of rising tensions between the colonists (and Massachusetts in particular) that were technically part of a monarch, but had practically been independent and King George III who began (trying) to exert more authority over them. But, like I said I don’t know what you’re getting at. I’m assuming it’s a rhetorical question, but I’m not sure for what. The right to bear arms was not included in the original Constitution. Nothing that happened during the war made them feel compelled to initially include it. It was amended later, and it didn’t have anything at all to do with the Battle of Lexington/Concord. It mostly had to do with a concern of not wanting states to try and overpower and disarm another state. There were other reasons too, but that was the main one.

    And yes, UVA could do what the wanted. So could Princeton. And what the person who authored the constitution wanted to do was to ban guns from Princeton, and what the author of the Declaration wanted to do was ban guns from UVA. So it’s safe to conclude that they would not be opposed to the idea of gun regulations since…yunno…they themselves imposed regulations.
    Last edited by xubrew; 06-22-2022 at 10:02 PM.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •