Be a Supporter!

Gun confiscation

  • 5,147 Views
  • 218 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-17 10:10:57 Reply

At 1/17/13 05:27 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote:
At 1/16/13 06:45 PM, RacistBassist wrote: I believe that it shouldn't come down to who the bigger fish is.
Natural selection states otherwise.

Actually, it is often the smaller animal who outlasts. So, WRONG.

CaveStoryGrounds
CaveStoryGrounds
  • Member since: Jan. 3, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Writer
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-17 11:00:32 Reply

At 1/17/13 10:10 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1/17/13 05:27 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote:
At 1/16/13 06:45 PM, RacistBassist wrote: I believe that it shouldn't come down to who the bigger fish is.
Natural selection states otherwise.
Actually, it is often the smaller animal who outlasts. So, WRONG.

Natural selection means the fittest or the best suited. Sometimes its small, sometimes is big, sometimes strong, sometimes smart.

MrPercie
MrPercie
  • Member since: Apr. 5, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 33
Gamer
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-17 12:11:44 Reply

At 1/17/13 11:00 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: Natural selection means the fittest or the best suited. Sometimes its small, sometimes is big, sometimes strong, sometimes smart.

how the fuck did this conversation/argument deteriorate into a debate about fish size and natural selection?


BBS Signature
MrPercie
MrPercie
  • Member since: Apr. 5, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 33
Gamer
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-17 12:28:29 Reply

At 12/31/12 06:25 PM, LemonCrush wrote: So, Dianne Feinstien is currently trying to introduce a bill, that will require registration of all firearms and Photo ID's and fingerprinting for all gunowners. Dianna Feinstien's goal, in her words, is to "disarm all americans". And she plans to make this law ex post facto. How does everyone feel about this?

well I dont see whats wrong with the firearm registration, photo ID's and fingerprinting but certainty trying to "disarm all americans" is rather against peoples freedom to arm themselves and defend themselves.

Just two notes. 1) Ex Post Facto laws are unconstitutional, and 2) Historically, registration laws ALWAYS lead to confiscation

it does? well you best stop talking to me and start protesting 'n' shit.


BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-17 12:36:59 Reply

At 1/17/13 02:12 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Ammo capacity, rate of fire, things like this is purely cosmetic? I'm not a big gun guy but even I know that's ridiculous.

Ammo capacity and rate of fire is not cosmetic...you are correct. At the same time, do they really make these firearms uncommonly or unusually deadly or threatening? While on the surface the logical answer is 'yes'...once you start to learn about firearms you see the threat to the public these things pose are vastly overstated.

Secondly, many things with the ban are cosmetic and/or even semantic differences:
* pistol grips
* barrel shrouds (which are the same things as foreends)
* flash suppressors/muzzle brakes
* grenade launchers (which either only fires flares or grenades that are not available even to the US military).
* collapsable stocks

And again I say if that's the attitude, then we shouldn't have any laws and everybody should do whatever the fuck they want as long as it's in the name of protecting themselves. This is the logical end point to your argument.

The other illogical extreme is we should outlaw cars because drunk drivers will lose their licenses...but drive anyway. So we need to take the killing machine away from everyone.

Again, I fail to see how making bans to keep assault weapons, which are demonstrably different from handguns, out of the public's hands is merely a ban on "cosmetics".

They are demonstrably different from handguns in that:

* Handguns are used in crime.
* Handguns tend to be far more deadly than military style assault rifles.

Those are not matters of opinion...these are facts.

How so? Also if the current regulations don't solve the problem, why then is the answer "drop all regulations" instead of "well, let's make some better ones"?

You misunderstand the argument. It isn't that we're saying 'drop all regulations'...what we're saying is you are regulating the wrong things.

We're saying we've done all we can do with gun regulation to the point that we cannot expect anymore effect to be had by further regulation. We need to address other problems such as education, economic issues, racial issues, and even the place violence occupies in our society.


Well, then whatever sources your using (which are probably friendly, or getting info from the NRA) are lying.

While Obama doesn't think so, a wide body of ACADEMIC research exists on this subject. We are talking about peer-reviewed academic journals...not the rags of special interest groups preying upon the emotions of people on both sides.


Again, show me what you mean by "looks" and "cosmetics". Because all I hear is banning assault type weapons. Which are not merely cosmetically different from a handgun, they are FUNCTIONALLY different as well.

They have greater ammo capacity. They also fire ammo that inflicts harm on a much smaller scale than handguns do. An AR-15 round go so fast that even hollow point ammo will not have much effect. On the other hand, a handgun fires a bullet that is often 2-3x larger than an assault rifle's bullet. It also fires at a slower speed meaning that the round has more chance to expand and do more damage.

High cap mags have a greater chance of failing.
Semi-autos have a higher chance of failing (regardless of pistol, rifle, or shotgun).

Also, yes the ban in 1994 was based on cosmetics (none of us can speak on what the final bill will look like since it hasn't been written yet). It allowed high capacity magazines...but defined a firearm as an 'assault weapon' if it had the following features:
* pistol grip
* collapsable stock
* bayonet lugs
* inoperable bayonet lugs
* flash suppressors

I can sign off on the idea of accepting a high-cap mag being something functional that differentiates an assault rifle from other firearms...but that is not something the '94 AWB prohibited. My AK was purchased legally under the '94 AWB, the only difference between it and a military style AK-47 was that it had a thumbhole stock and lacked a flash suppressor and bayonet lug.

But it is the same gun as an AK-47 clone in all the ways that matter....it just looks different.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995... " I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-17 14:03:38 Reply

At 1/17/13 09:35 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: Have you tried reading the executive orders? All they really do is enforce already existing laws. Even some of the most nit wit gun nuts that have read the executive orders have calmed down. I don't even think Fox News is freaking out.

So once again, Obama let's down and betrays his base by going soft or contradicting the issue. Good. I don't know how Democrats and liberals can still support him. More war, more corporate welfare, extension of the Patriot Act and Gitmo (things people said Bush should be impeached for), more catering to the banking industry, and now he's pussing out on gun control. lol

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-17 14:05:25 Reply

At 1/17/13 12:28 PM, MrPercie wrote: it does? well you best stop talking to me and start protesting 'n' shit.

Absolutely. For the Axis nations of WW2, or communist China or Russia, firearm registration and tracking of gun owners were stepping stones to confiscation in the name of "safety".

Kel-chan
Kel-chan
  • Member since: Mar. 6, 2011
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Animator
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-17 14:48:07 Reply

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity"

~Sigmund Freud

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-17 18:02:24 Reply

At 1/17/13 02:48 PM, Kellz5460 wrote: ~Sigmund Freud

Ever wonder why the name Freud sounds so much like 'fraud'? Not likely a mere coincidence.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-17 19:27:36 Reply

At 1/17/13 06:02 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1/17/13 02:48 PM, Kellz5460 wrote: ~Sigmund Freud
Ever wonder why the name Freud sounds so much like 'fraud'? Not likely a mere coincidence.

All of thes Freud

Founder of psychoanalysis.
Theory of Psychosexual Development
The Id, Ego, and Superego
Dream interpretation
Free association.

are you suggesting none of this is valuable?

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-17 19:56:00 Reply

At 1/17/13 07:27 PM, Ceratisa wrote: All of thes Freud

Founder of psychoanalysis.
Theory of Psychosexual Development
The Id, Ego, and Superego
Dream interpretation
Free association.

are you suggesting none of this is valuable?

It's not that they aren't valuable, it's just that his theories are usually incorrect, according to modern shrinks.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-17 19:59:23 Reply

Some of his idea's still hold up, but some of them were just hilarious and preposterous. Like how all men are driven by a desire to have sex with their mothers and all women are driven by an envy of the penis.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream. " - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
CaveStoryGrounds
CaveStoryGrounds
  • Member since: Jan. 3, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Writer
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-17 21:29:48 Reply

At 1/17/13 02:03 PM, LemonCrush wrote: So once again, Obama let's down and betrays his base by going soft or contradicting the issue. Good. I don't know how Democrats and liberals can still support him.

The alternative (Republicans) are worse.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-17 22:51:27 Reply

At 1/17/13 09:29 PM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: The alternative (Republicans) are worse.

1) There are other alternatives
2) And they aren't worse, they're the same.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-18 02:25:15 Reply

At 1/17/13 07:56 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 1/17/13 07:27 PM, Ceratisa wrote: All of thes Freud

Founder of psychoanalysis.
Theory of Psychosexual Development
The Id, Ego, and Superego
Dream interpretation
Free association.

are you suggesting none of this is valuable?
It's not that they aren't valuable, it's just that his theories are usually incorrect, according to modern shrinks.

His modern theories don't all have to add up to change what he did to the field of psychology.

Fim
Fim
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 47
Audiophile
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-18 09:56:52 Reply

Just thought I'd throw this into the debate.

I am from the UK, and so I've been brought up in a society that is unshakably anti-gun. I think guns are dangerous murder weapons, but I understand in America it seems like you have some morbid fascination with them, and that's fine. Even if I get exasperated every time I see a news story about gun crime, or a school shooting in the US, I just shake my head and dismiss it as a natural up shot of the situation you have put yourself in over there.

But I've got some interesting data to throw into the mix. I have family in New Zealand, where guns are legal, and they have been named (one of) the most peaceful countries on earth. Their gun Homicide rate is extremely low New Zealand (0.9) / United States (4.8) / United Kingdom (1.2) *defined as deaths per 100,000 population. So it's even lower than the UK which has a blanket ban on pretty much all firearms, with very few exceptions for gun clubs or antique weaponry. To be completely honest, New Zealand has some gun problems, but if you look at the country as a whole compared to the rest of the world, they measure up extremely well.

However, in New Zealand, they also have very high Restrictions on all firearms, especially the more 'military style' firearms.

In order to own weapons in New Zealand, you have to go through a series of rigorous qualifiers. For starters, owning or using firearms requires a firearms licence from the police, applicants have to prove they have a secure storage space for firearms, attend a safety lecture and pass a written safety test. The police will also interview the applicant and two referees (one must be a close relative and the other not related) to determine whether the applicant is "fit and proper" to have a firearm. The applicant's residence is also visited to check that they have appropriate storage for firearms and ammunition. Having criminal associations or a history of domestic violence almost always leads to a licence being declined. This is only for acquiring a licence that allows the citizen to own "category A firearms" (New Zealand has a couple of different categories ranging from A (the majority of firearms), B (pistols licence), C, D (dealers licence), E (Military Style Semi-Automatics (M.S.S.A), F (dealers staff licence).

This all seems like a lot more reasonable than buying a gun in WalMart.

Like I said, I'm from the UK and I'm no expert on American gun restriction policy, but I'm 99% sure it's no way near as rigorous as this. Although I'd love to be given more evidence.

So my argument to Americans would be this, keep your guns, I know that they make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, but just have tighter restrictions like these. For those pro gun people please bare in mind I don't even think any politicians are even saying that they want to take all your guns away, Obama even said "I believe in the 2nd amendment that guarantees an individual's right to bear arms", even though the NRA love to exaggerate and discredit everything Obama says. New Zealand shows that where you have responsible, heavily regulated ownership, you have a safer society. I am massively in favour of making it harder to own a gun unless you are willing to prove you are educated and trained in how to use them. That to me seems like a sensible move forward.

Although I eagerly await your responses! xox

At 1/15/13 07:04 PM, LemonCrush wrote: A) An unarmed society has never existed. Ever.

YES there have. There have been loads. Do some research into Hinduism Societys that have existed in India for centuries before you make unfounded claims like that.

B) Let me ask you something. I am being robbed on the street, or at an ATM. How do you suppose I stop him?

You don't. You aren't Kurt Russell. You give him your money, and you report it to the police. It's only material possessions at the end of the day and the really valuable thing you should be worried about is your life. You aren't doing yourself a favour by risking getting into a confrontation because if you carry a gun you are more likely to get killed yourself. I've been mugged before, and it wasn't nice, but I reported it and in the the police and in the end they managed to find the guy and I got my phone back.


BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-18 13:00:24 Reply

At 1/18/13 09:56 AM, Fim wrote: Having criminal associations or a history of domestic violence almost always leads to a licence being declined.

This is a jor problem here in the US. Millions of people have DV on their records, yet are allowed to own guns like they are safe people (There is no such that as a safe DV perpetrator).

The lack of registration allows a mass of violent people (with full on records) to legally own guns. Or to buy guns, then commit a vilent act and not lose that gun, as they would their driver's license if they drove recklessly.

Frankly, DV accounts for a hell of a lot more gun violence in the US than mental illness does.


YES there have. There have been loads. Do some research into Hinduism Societys that have existed in India for centuries before you make unfounded claims like that.

You may be thinking of the Jains, because the historically the Hindu peoples were extremely warlike.

You aren't doing yourself a favour by risking getting into a confrontation because if you carry a gun you are more likely to get killed yourself.

Or hurt someone innocent.

Fim
Fim
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 47
Audiophile
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-18 13:26:24 Reply

At 1/18/13 01:00 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1/18/13 09:56 AM, Fim wrote: Having criminal associations or a history of domestic violence almost always leads to a licence being declined.
This is a jor problem here in the US. Millions of people have DV on their records, yet are allowed to own guns like they are safe people (There is no such that as a safe DV perpetrator).

The lack of registration allows a mass of violent people (with full on records) to legally own guns. Or to buy guns, then commit a vilent act and not lose that gun, as they would their driver's license if they drove recklessly.

Frankly, DV accounts for a hell of a lot more gun violence in the US than mental illness does.

I agree. And as I mentioned in the other thread Obama's just put a bill to congress suggesting that there should be a universal background check on anyone wanting to buy a gun. Which I was pretty surprised to learn that it wasn't in place already!

YES there have. There have been loads. Do some research into Hinduism Societys that have existed in India for centuries before you make unfounded claims like that.
You may be thinking of the Jains, because the historically the Hindu peoples were extremely warlike.

It might be, to be honest it was something I discussed with my sister who studied a degree in Anthropology (she got a 1st for that which I'm sure no one here cares about :P) and she was telling me some very interesting stuff about how some of the aboriginous tribes live. She knows much more about it than me.

You aren't doing yourself a favour by risking getting into a confrontation because if you carry a gun you are more likely to get killed yourself.
Or hurt someone innocent.

Or yourself


BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-18 21:54:47 Reply

You aren't doing yourself a favour by risking getting into a confrontation because if you carry a gun you are more likely to get killed yourself.
Or hurt someone innocent.

What about where the only option is to fight back or see your family raped and killed? You can't go straight to the situation where everything is fine if you don't resist. That isn't fair or realistic.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-18 22:41:58 Reply

At 1/18/13 09:56 AM, Fim wrote: I am from the UK, and so I've been brought up in a society that is unshakably anti-gun. I think guns are dangerous murder weapons, but I understand in America it seems like you have some morbid fascination with them, and that's fine. Even if I get exasperated every time I see a news story about gun crime, or a school shooting in the US, I just shake my head and dismiss it as a natural up shot of the situation you have put yourself in over there.

Do you think that it is possible that since you are from the UK and therefore not brought up in an enviroment where guns are a norm...you lack some insight into the topic?

For example, I had to replace my mailbox and I decided to replace it with a wood post instead of this ancient steel/iron/kryptonite post that was ugly and cemented into the ground with about 3 bags of concrete weighing 80 lbs (36 kg) each. So my buddy brought his acetylene torch over to cut it, and offered to teach me to use it. At first I was frightened of it. I had no knowledge of how to operate it...only that it was very dangerous and people who used it professionally had to go through a lot of training to use them properly.

But then I used it and while I still respect the acetylene torch and the pain it can inflict...I do not fear it.

Now I know you're probably going to say something about how the purpose of the acetylene torch is beneficial and the gun is destructive. I get it, I've heard it before...and I acknowledge it.

But without an understanding of what guns are outside of what you see in TV and the movies, and what they are capable of doing...don't you think that maybe you might be making some assumptions that are going to lead you to erroneous conclusions? For example...why have different classifications for different guns? And if you're going to...would military style semi-autos be the ones you want to be the most or least restrictive on?


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995... " I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-18 22:51:10 Reply

At 1/18/13 09:56 AM, Fim wrote: ... You aren't doing yourself a favour by risking getting into a confrontation because if you carry a gun you are more likely to get killed yourself.

Just caught this...

Actually you are wrong on this account. We've had concealed carry in this country for almost 30 years now. We have a corresponding reduction in crime. We also have less injuries when a civilian uses a firearm than when cops use theirs. And we don't see any phenomenon/trend that indicates that you are more likely to get hurt/killed by carrying your firearm.

There is this one statistic that get bandied about that you are 48x more likely to get shot/injured/killed (depends on the source citing the source) if you own a gun. But this doesn't, as my Statistics for the Social Sciences (who was the Poli Sci department chair...since we were PhD students) says, pass the giggle test. Of course participating in an activity is going to increase your chances of getting injured by either the activity itself or its related equipment. I do not skydive so someone who does has an exponentially more chance of being injured by a parachute than I do. I drive and own two cars...ergo I am significantly/exponentially more at risk at getting injured by a car than someone who is Amish and shuns cars.

It is a meaningless statistic...that is outweighed by all the other trends and observed phenomenon related to gun safety and gun violence.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995... " I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Kel-chan
Kel-chan
  • Member since: Mar. 6, 2011
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Animator
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-18 23:44:47 Reply

At 1/18/13 10:51 PM, TheMason wrote:
At 1/18/13 09:56 AM, Fim wrote: ... You aren't doing yourself a favour by risking getting into a confrontation because if you carry a gun you are more likely to get killed yourself.

more likely...eh?

Gun confiscation

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-19 00:00:17 Reply

Since this thread is entitled "Gun confiscation" I'd like to point out I have yet to see any law or EO that puts into law any sort of confiscation or mandatory buyback programs.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-19 01:36:01 Reply

At 1/19/13 12:00 AM, Feoric wrote: Since this thread is entitled "Gun confiscation" I'd like to point out I have yet to see any law or EO that puts into law any sort of confiscation or mandatory buyback programs.

It is Dianne Feinstiens goal

And it's already become reality in NY...

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-19 01:55:46 Reply

At 1/19/13 01:36 AM, LemonCrush wrote: It is Dianne Feinstiens goal

Yes I know this was originally about Feinstien, but talk is cheap. Items actually being implemented matter more to me, although that's not to take away from any discussion you were having about her ideas. All I'm saying is I don't see any of it being codified into law. If Obama really was a gun grabbing Maoist, I'd figure that would have been the first thing he would have implemented.

And it's already become reality in NY...

Can you show me where in the bill it says anything about confiscation? I thought it dealt almost exclusively with regulating high capacity magazines.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-19 01:58:36 Reply

At 1/19/13 12:00 AM, Feoric wrote: Since this thread is entitled "Gun confiscation" I'd like to point out I have yet to see any law or EO that puts into law any sort of confiscation or mandatory buyback programs.

This is just being dense. "Oh no legislation has been introduced yet, I'm just going to ignore peoples stated intents and the stepping stones up to confiscation and that people are already calling for complete confiscation"


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-19 02:00:46 Reply

At 1/19/13 01:58 AM, RacistBassist wrote: This is just being dense. "Oh no legislation has been introduced yet, I'm just going to ignore peoples stated intents and the stepping stones up to confiscation and that people are already calling for complete confiscation"

Well then, we'll just have to wait and see! And I have been waiting a looong time. Any day now...

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-19 02:08:33 Reply

At 1/19/13 02:00 AM, Feoric wrote: Well then, we'll just have to wait and see! And I have been waiting a looong time. Any day now...

That's because the people trying to do so have been incompetent. That doesn't mean we stop trying to prevent them from doing so


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-19 02:20:19 Reply

At 1/19/13 02:08 AM, RacistBassist wrote: That's because the people trying to do so have been incompetent.

You may be right! You may also just want your paranoia to be confirmed, but like I said, time will tell. I think that's just insane political suicide with zero chance of ever passing Congress and guaranteeing whatever party wrote that kind of legislation to not win any election for a long time, but I'll be here all day.

Ericho
Ericho
  • Member since: Sep. 21, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 44
Movie Buff
Response to Gun confiscation 2013-01-19 11:27:02 Reply

I remember seeing an episode of Penn and Teller's show on guns, saying they were against gun control, but then again, I did hear from one source they actually got some information wrong, so it's not absolute. I personally wouldn't be for restrictions on guns themselves, so I thought the best thing to do would be to do background checks, which is thankfully what they agreed to do.


You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock