Politics Thread

[Caf]

I could not agree with you more on the matter of assault rifles. It is simply ridiculous to allow them in society the way we do.

The second amendment should stand today for the very reasons it was put in place originally. The problem now is that nobody back then who at the time used "pellet guns" could ever envision gun technology as it has evolved to today.

Heads up, Juice is going to question you on the term "assault rifles" next. Good luck.

[GoMuskies]

Heads up, Juice is going to question you on the term "assault rifles" next. Good luck.

Do you know what an assault rifle is? I don't. They sound "bad" and "dangerous", though. But shouldn't we know what something is before we go off all half-cocked and try to ban it?

[bobbiemcgee]

A device shooting 450 rounds in a few minutes rendering a substantial structure uninhabitable may qualify.

[Caf]

Do you know what an assault rifle is? I don't. They sound "bad" and "dangerous", though. But shouldn't we know what something is before we go off all half-cocked and try to ban it?

https://www.theonion.com/nation-to-w...ore-1820186609

We all need to take a deep breath, gather as much information as we can, and then sit with our hands folded indefinitely.

I don't know and I don't care about the semantics and straw men anymore. And I actually disagree with your "shouldn't we..." sentence. I've gotten to the point where I think intervening now and then figuring out the right way for guns to exist in our society is the best course of action. The status quo isn't working. I'd rather the government try something rather than sitting on its hands waiting for the reality to not be the reality.

[Juice]

Heads up, Juice is going to question you on the term "assault rifles" next. Good luck.

I actually like to know what something is and how it works or the differences between it and similar devices are before I suggest banning it.

The media constantly shoves incorrect information to the public on firearms and none of them know what the hell they're talking about so you guys parrot the same bullshit.

[Caf]

I actually like to know what something is and how it works or the differences between it and similar devices are before I suggest banning it.

The media constantly shoves incorrect information to the public on firearms and none of them know what the hell they're talking about so you guys parrot the same bullshit.

It kills things. That's how it works.

[Juice]

It kills things. That's how it works.

That's deep.

[GoMuskies]

I don't know and I don't care about the semantics and straw men anymore.

What straw man or semantics? You literally don't want to know what you're banning or what the consequences of it would be. How is that a rational way to discuss any issue? It's very Pelosi-esque.

[Caf]

What straw man or semantics? You literally don't want to know what you're banning or what the consequences of it would be. How is that a rational way to discuss any issue? It's very Pelosi-esque.

Like I said. "I'd rather the government try something rather than sitting on its hands waiting for the reality to not be the reality."

What are the consequences of inaction?

[Juice]

Like I said. "I'd rather the government try something rather than sitting on its hands waiting for the reality to not be the reality."

What are the consequences of inaction?

You know how this shooting or Dylan Roof could have been avoided? The Air Force could have entered the Texas shooter's DV conviction into the database and the FBI could have responded on the background check of Dylan Roof. Roof was prohibited from buying/owning a firearm because of his prior drug conviction. Rules/Laws are in place that would have prevented these shootings but the federal government f*cked up. Now you want that same federal government to "just do something"?