Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
51% of mass shooters in 2019 were black, 29% were white, and 11% were Latino.
Comments
-
Show me where it says you can essentially ban and register all fully automatic weapons.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Disagree. Give an inch and they'll take a mile. Please to be showing where in Constitution does it allow for 'reasonable confiscation' of firearms?TurdBomber said:
If the people in charge of regulating guns weren't terrified of guns and didn't hate all guns with a passion, this problem would be much easier to solve and reasonable safe compromises would've happened decades ago. But who's gonna listen to a veteran wearing a MAGA hat or even an NRA hat? What would he know, right?Swaye said:
I do agree that we can be cautious, but still expeditious. What I mean is, no typical government bullshit whereby guns are removed for legitimate threat made or whatever on June 7th, first hearing on August 11th, mental health exam on October 1st, second hearing on October 30th, and return of guns after final decisions rendered on December 12th. These cases need to be streamlined and get by all the bullshit red tape - you are depriving someone of their civil liberties every day this drags on. So yes, you can be cautious but still operate in such a way as to say the entire process must conclude in 90 days, or whatever. I just do not want to see this used as a tool by the state to effectively disarm people for years while the system works it out. Figure it out - they are batshit or dangerous or they aren't. If no, return guns immediately, if yes, insane asylum or counseling.HHusky said:Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
edit: As I said originally this one is super tricky because of all the possible ways this can be used as a tool of the state, a weapon against the populace, or just misused by angry employees, scorned lovers, etc. Tight controls, on the government, are warranted here.
Instead the anti-gun forces count every tragedy as a notch in their belt for more "gun control" against law-abiding citizens instead of "gun confiscation" from crazy fucks who make threats against people and get all gassed up on line to go out and kill people in large numbers. All the gun owners I know, including myself, have no problem with the state setting up reasonable confiscation rules and putting fair-minded people who know something about guns in charge of deciding who gets their guns taken, for how long, and under what terms they get them back.
But, unfortunately, that ain't how our democracy works anymore, if it ever could've worked. Instead we'd get some liberal dyke who's never held a gun deciding which man gets to keep or lose his guns. And sorry, but fuck that. -
Don't miss the point, @OBK. It's not the laws that matter, and we know some will be passed after all this. It's the people who get to enforce them, or not, that ultimately matter. Including and especially the judge's who will decide what is and isn't Constitutional.
-
Shall not be infringed?2001400ex said:
Show me where it says you can essentially ban and register all fully automatic weapons.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Disagree. Give an inch and they'll take a mile. Please to be showing where in Constitution does it allow for 'reasonable confiscation' of firearms?TurdBomber said:
If the people in charge of regulating guns weren't terrified of guns and didn't hate all guns with a passion, this problem would be much easier to solve and reasonable safe compromises would've happened decades ago. But who's gonna listen to a veteran wearing a MAGA hat or even an NRA hat? What would he know, right?Swaye said:
I do agree that we can be cautious, but still expeditious. What I mean is, no typical government bullshit whereby guns are removed for legitimate threat made or whatever on June 7th, first hearing on August 11th, mental health exam on October 1st, second hearing on October 30th, and return of guns after final decisions rendered on December 12th. These cases need to be streamlined and get by all the bullshit red tape - you are depriving someone of their civil liberties every day this drags on. So yes, you can be cautious but still operate in such a way as to say the entire process must conclude in 90 days, or whatever. I just do not want to see this used as a tool by the state to effectively disarm people for years while the system works it out. Figure it out - they are batshit or dangerous or they aren't. If no, return guns immediately, if yes, insane asylum or counseling.HHusky said:Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
edit: As I said originally this one is super tricky because of all the possible ways this can be used as a tool of the state, a weapon against the populace, or just misused by angry employees, scorned lovers, etc. Tight controls, on the government, are warranted here.
Instead the anti-gun forces count every tragedy as a notch in their belt for more "gun control" against law-abiding citizens instead of "gun confiscation" from crazy fucks who make threats against people and get all gassed up on line to go out and kill people in large numbers. All the gun owners I know, including myself, have no problem with the state setting up reasonable confiscation rules and putting fair-minded people who know something about guns in charge of deciding who gets their guns taken, for how long, and under what terms they get them back.
But, unfortunately, that ain't how our democracy works anymore, if it ever could've worked. Instead we'd get some liberal dyke who's never held a gun deciding which man gets to keep or lose his guns. And sorry, but fuck that. -
Would these be the same judges who think its unconstitutional to have a border and deport illegals? Even if 'the right people' were in place to enforce such laws, eventually the wrong people will get their own guys in there. Slippery slope.TurdBomber said:Don't miss the point, @OBK. It's not the laws that matter, and we know some will be passed after all this. It's the people who get to enforce them, or not, that ultimately matter. Including and especially the judge's who will decide what is and isn't Constitutional.
-
African lives matterStrongArmCobra said:
What is this? Two cherry picked mass shootings? One is in Africa. We're talking about fucking America here.RaceBannon said:
A Turkish immigrant? Cool, nobody said ONLY white people commit these mass shootings. Just that the majority of them are committed by young white men here in America. White people need to get control of their fucking children and the government needs to do something to help prevent this from happening. This shit is absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable for our country.
-
I was a member back in the 90's or early 2000's. Maybe I should revisit.UW_Doog_Bot said:
GOA shout out.Swaye said:
I disagree. It's perspective. I would say the Democrats who constantly demonize them and press for more gun control are responsible for their actions. This is absolutely a two way street. The Brady Bill started it in earnest, and the Federal Assault Weapon ban institutionalized it. That is when the DNC en masse went against the NRA, and the NRA did the same to them. It has been a hate hate relationship ever since, and neither side has any incentive to close the gap.2001400ex said:
I'm more cynical about the NRA than you are. While Democrats are shitty and not making the problem better, it's not their fault that the NRA isn't doing anything to help the problems, the NRA is accountable for their actions. The NRA is there to promote gun manufacturers. That's not where they started, but that's where they have been the last 20 years.Swaye said:
The issue is, and I am not trying to make this a shit throwing thing because I have been amazed at how level headed this has been so far, is that the NRA feels attacked right now. They see themselves as the last bulwark between freedom and lunatics who hate THEM. Rightly or wrongly.2001400ex said:
The process should be easy for responsible, knowledgeable gun owners. There's got to be a way for those owners to have easy access. At the same time, people who don't have training or respect for guns, have a few more loopholes before they can exercise their rights. The thinking there is: very very few of these Mass shootings are by gun owners with the proper training. It's usually fucked up people who decide to buy a few guns with little to no barriers.GrundleStiltzkin said:And regarding background checks, my experience as a buyer has been fine. It's been far too long since I've bought a long gun but it was easy. I bought a pistol for my wife a while back, and it was simple with my CPL.
I wish the NRA would step in to fix it.
The NRA could fix this tomorrow. If they called every member of the GOP and said look, we are now for closing all background check loopholes it would be done in a day. The issue is, to me, that some Dems have so vilified the NRA (and its members) that the NRA brass would now refuse to piss on those Dems if they were on fire. I think, perhaps wrongly, that if some of the DNC toned down the rhetoric and actually tried true engagement with the NRA to work toward incremental solutions, something might get done. But in the current climate where Bloomberg and others trash them and their membership every single day, and the NRA gives it right back to them, there is zero chance of that happening.
As others have mentioned, I sometimes wonder if the gun debate is about making real changes, or just a campaign issue to keep everyone pissed off, fired up, and donating (on both sides).
But laying all this at the NRAs feet is BS. They are certainly a party to it, but the DNC is an equal partner in the acrimony.
I do agree, as a Life NRA member and guy who got my first real professional safety training from them in the early 80's as a kid, that the NRA has strayed from their core mission the last couple of decades. That change also coincided with the AWB I might add. The NRA saw safety in money, and cozied up to the gun manufacturers as a way to increase their power. I am very much nonplussed that half the shit I receive from the NRA now is offers to buy insurance or some other bullshit. That is not their mission - it is gun safety and the last 30 years protection of the 2nd Amendment. But, they are still the best game in town to protect my rights, even if they aren't what they once were. -
Yet somehow this is the worst oneStrongArmCobra said:I've seen some bad posts.
-
Once again, this isn't about public safety. This is about disarming American citizens. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and smile. Switzerland was a nut that Hitler didn't want to crack. Massively armed citizenry. Still today.
-
It say very plainly "shall not be infringed". Look the fucking word up.2001400ex said:
Show me where it says you can essentially ban and register all fully automatic weapons.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Disagree. Give an inch and they'll take a mile. Please to be showing where in Constitution does it allow for 'reasonable confiscation' of firearms?TurdBomber said:
If the people in charge of regulating guns weren't terrified of guns and didn't hate all guns with a passion, this problem would be much easier to solve and reasonable safe compromises would've happened decades ago. But who's gonna listen to a veteran wearing a MAGA hat or even an NRA hat? What would he know, right?Swaye said:
I do agree that we can be cautious, but still expeditious. What I mean is, no typical government bullshit whereby guns are removed for legitimate threat made or whatever on June 7th, first hearing on August 11th, mental health exam on October 1st, second hearing on October 30th, and return of guns after final decisions rendered on December 12th. These cases need to be streamlined and get by all the bullshit red tape - you are depriving someone of their civil liberties every day this drags on. So yes, you can be cautious but still operate in such a way as to say the entire process must conclude in 90 days, or whatever. I just do not want to see this used as a tool by the state to effectively disarm people for years while the system works it out. Figure it out - they are batshit or dangerous or they aren't. If no, return guns immediately, if yes, insane asylum or counseling.HHusky said:Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
edit: As I said originally this one is super tricky because of all the possible ways this can be used as a tool of the state, a weapon against the populace, or just misused by angry employees, scorned lovers, etc. Tight controls, on the government, are warranted here.
Instead the anti-gun forces count every tragedy as a notch in their belt for more "gun control" against law-abiding citizens instead of "gun confiscation" from crazy fucks who make threats against people and get all gassed up on line to go out and kill people in large numbers. All the gun owners I know, including myself, have no problem with the state setting up reasonable confiscation rules and putting fair-minded people who know something about guns in charge of deciding who gets their guns taken, for how long, and under what terms they get them back.
But, unfortunately, that ain't how our democracy works anymore, if it ever could've worked. Instead we'd get some liberal dyke who's never held a gun deciding which man gets to keep or lose his guns. And sorry, but fuck that. -
Don't confuse the 9th circuit with the USSC.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Would these be the same judges who think its unconstitutional to have a border and deport illegals? Even if 'the right people' were in place to enforce such laws, eventually the wrong people will get their own guys in there. Slippery slope.TurdBomber said:Don't miss the point, @OBK. It's not the laws that matter, and we know some will be passed after all this. It's the people who get to enforce them, or not, that ultimately matter. Including and especially the judge's who will decide what is and isn't Constitutional.
