- Joined
- Sep 17, 2009
- Messages
- 25,820
- Reaction score
- 1,556
Trying to fix a problem and in the process introducing more problems, is often worse than doing nothing.
It will always come down to a pros/cons cost/benefit analysis.
Should they ban assault weapons?
- Thread starter takestwototango
- Start date
Trying to fix a problem and in the process introducing more problems, is often worse than doing nothing.
It will always come down to a pros/cons cost/benefit analysis.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2016
- Messages
- 25,994
- Reaction score
- 23,637
No we should not ban semi auto rifles with detachable magazines .... but if you are coming up on the no fly/terror watch list than you should not be able to buy a gun of any kind.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2009
- Messages
- 70,213
- Reaction score
- 43,266
You can't be denied a constitutional right without due process.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2012
- Messages
- 14,610
- Reaction score
- 2,688
Well I'm of the opinion that if you are going to be taking people's due process away it better be a better system than just no fly no buy.
I'm not sure how the terror watch list works but imo that already sounds like a better list to go after? Maybe I'm wrong.
Out of curiosity has a no fly member ever done a mass shooting that could have been prevented by this legislation. The Orlando guy wasn't on the no fly list.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Messages
- 57,509
- Reaction score
- 21,596
The no fly list is fucking stupid. First, are we to presume the security measures in place (which everyone goes through) are ineffective at identifying dangerous items being taken aboard planes? Second, why not just give these folks some extra scrutiny instead of banning their travel altogether? What's the real purpose here? To keep assholes from blowing up planes or just to cock-block people who did some random thing that got them placed on some secret government list?
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2016
- Messages
- 25,994
- Reaction score
- 23,637
Yea. It happened to me it can happen to them too. If you cant buy a gun cuz of a pot card you damn sure shouldnt be able to buy one with a terrorism connection.
Laws can be changed and thats one that I would be all right with.
Islam always uses our rights against us and fuck making it easier for them. You and I should be able to own whatever arms we wish but some radical islamist should not. I would prefer they try to do it that way than an all out gun ban but I really do fear that if we dont figure out something and these fucks keep doing this an all out gun ban is going to be what we end up with .
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2009
- Messages
- 70,213
- Reaction score
- 43,266
That's nice and all, but you can't deny a constitutional right without due process.
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2008
- Messages
- 29,734
- Reaction score
- 7,651
This..
Due process is the point.
How does one make it on the no-fly list? Someone in the thread pointed out that the ACLU filed a suit arguing this very point. Taking away ones Constitutional right because that person happened to be found on a nebulously compiled list opens a slew of doors, namely it denies that persons their day in court.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 11,123
- Reaction score
- 219
Less, 248 people killed in US from assault weapons in 2014.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2016
- Messages
- 25,994
- Reaction score
- 23,637
Ok cept for the times throughout our nations history where we have been at like war and did what we had to do and apologized for it later if we had to. I think not letting certain people buy guns is probably a lot less harsh than immigration issues , a blanket gun ban , internment camps or messing with the first amendment when you start talking about whos religion is protected and whos isnt but thats just my opinion on the matter dude. I dont think allowing islam to threaten us and then hide behind our constitution is the best way to deal with the problem but again thats just my opinion .
- Joined
- May 7, 2008
- Messages
- 20,161
- Reaction score
- 9
Yes, ban them. But I'd like to go further and say ban all guns and they should be all turned in to the government. Nobody needs guns. Everyone has a cellphone. If you need help, call 911. Only police, ONLY when on-duty, and active duty military, serving in a time of war, with a combat job, should be able to handle weapons and even then, after every shift, they should all be collected and locked up until the next work day.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2009
- Messages
- 28,909
- Reaction score
- 26,163
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2009
- Messages
- 28,909
- Reaction score
- 26,163
When I lived with my parents our house got broken into. Our city had no police department, and we had to wait on the county Sheriffs. It took over 30 minutes for an officer to arrive.
SO IN SHORT. FUCK YOU. (unless you are joking)
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2012
- Messages
- 14,610
- Reaction score
- 2,688
He's joking
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2010
- Messages
- 2,576
- Reaction score
- 0
Can they ban the military from using assault weapons on people around the world that have nothing to do what-so-ever with Americans' safety and security? No, the same Democrats (and Republicans?) crying for gun control can't control themselves from supporting the use of more effective assault weapons in the ME. Hypocrites the lot of em.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2012
- Messages
- 906
- Reaction score
- 0
You're right, I changed it. Thank you.
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2011
- Messages
- 62,247
- Reaction score
- 48,967
So let's further expand the government's powers to prosecute the War on Terror to include being able to deny constitutional rights without due process. I'm sure then the government will be able to wrap this thing up quickly, its not like "Terror" is nebulous concept that could be redefined in such a way so as to allow the war to continue indefinitely.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 12, 2015
- Messages
- 14,116
- Reaction score
- 4,321
I'm conflicted. On one hand, these weapons are weapons of war. I don't give a fuck how you try to word it, the AR model is a war weapon. It's functionally the same as the M4/M16s we used. As long as people have easy access to these types of weapons, mass murder via gun violence will still occur at the rates we see today.
On the other hand, as a victim of gun violence and veteran, I'm not depending on the police to save me in a tight spot. They will only be there to clean up the mess. We are also given the right via the second amendment. if we are truly disarmed, then there is no defense against a corrupt government.
I just think if 4 or 5 sober and trained people were in that building with their weapons, maybe someone could have stopped that monster. The problem with banning these weapons is there are already hundreds of thousands of them on the streets. If you ban them, you turn control of those weapons to criminals. How does that make anyone any safer?
On the other hand, as a victim of gun violence and veteran, I'm not depending on the police to save me in a tight spot. They will only be there to clean up the mess. We are also given the right via the second amendment. if we are truly disarmed, then there is no defense against a corrupt government.
I just think if 4 or 5 sober and trained people were in that building with their weapons, maybe someone could have stopped that monster. The problem with banning these weapons is there are already hundreds of thousands of them on the streets. If you ban them, you turn control of those weapons to criminals. How does that make anyone any safer?
