Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to comment and join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium Member today for an ad-free experience. 

     

Recommended Posts

Posted

two things that need to change:

1. improve background checks and make sure mental health checks are part of it

2. find ways to reduce the number of illegal weapons that are out there on the loose

Posted

Obama is right about the fact that it's impossible to get even the tiniest gun control measures through congress. And it's really all because hard line gun rights supporters fail to understand shades of grey. You won't get any Republicans to vote for a hypothetical bill that limits magazine capacities to ten rounds because the hard line gun rights people in their district will say, "That guy is pro gun control." Thus, that politician is immediately placed in the camp of "Wants to take my guns away". Unfortunately, there is no space in the conservative voting world for a "Wants to enact reasonable safety measures" camp. If you're a Republican politician, you only have to choices. You're either the guy that wants no change in regulations, or you're the guy that wants to ban guns completely. Obviously, they are forced to choose the former, given their constituency.

Posted

What makes you think removing guns from everybody's hands would change anything? 

 

People who want to kill will find other ways to successfully pull it off.   I'm far more concerned about the alternatives because they can be disguised in ways that nobody will think twice about.  Take away their guns and they'll return to the classroom or a movie theater with a pressure cooker bomb concealed in a backpack, just like the Boston marathon. 

 

There's also plenty of chemical weapons that can be made with readily available household chemicals.  

Posted

I have guns, so what. They haven't been used in the commission of a crime and I don't plan on using them for that. I enjoy shooting them and have no intent on giving up my right because some people don't like them. Some people don't like our other items in the Bill of Rights so we should let them go too? With that said I agree that there are a lot of people that should not own a gun at all. How do you know the people in those pics aren't good and decent citizens?

Posted

I have guns, so what. They haven't been used in the commission of a crime and I don't plan on using them for that. I enjoy shooting them and have no intent on giving up my right because some people don't like them. Some people don't like our other items in the Bill of Rights so we should let them go too? With that said I agree that there are a lot of people that should not own a gun at all. How do you know the people in those pics aren't good and decent citizens?

 

exactly. if i want a nuke, i'm getting a nuke.

Posted (edited)

exactly. if i want a nuke, i'm getting a nuke.

Yes that is exactly what I'm saying. Seriously, why do you have an issue with me owning my firearms? Edited by Angels N Skins
Posted

If he said he wanted a AK47 would that have been extreme?

In my opinion no it would not. Big difference between a semi automatic weapon and a nuke. Obviously measures need to be taken to help fix the problem but both sides are guilty of taken things to the extreme i.e. nukes.

Posted

In my opinion no it would not. Big difference between a semi automatic weapon and a nuke. Obviously measures need to be taken to help fix the problem but both sides are guilty of taken things to the extreme i.e. nukes.

If an AK isn't extreme then would him going out and buying a 50 cal.?

 

My point is who defines extreme? And I think Schil's point is all of this shit is extreme.

Posted

my point is if i wanted to own a nuclear weapon, it should be protected under the second amendment because it's an arm. not that i actually want one, or even a hand gun (i'm secure in my penis size). it's a logical argument against the 2nd amendment, which is sited so often,  by using an extreme example. why can't i own a nuke if the bill of rights says i have the right to arm myself?

Posted

No Tobias.  I think the government classifies them as destructive devices, which is basically the ATF's way of telling you hell no,  but I don't think any manufacturer would sell to anything but military and law enforcement, anyway. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...