Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaijyuu]

Looking at practicality is still important, though. Banning something can do more harm than good (see: prohibition).

I don't think it impractical to ban and/or regulate most any type of gun, though.

[Sensei]

Lastly, I see there is a strong anti-gun sentiment among many of you. I understand, really!

Just because someone is pro-gun control doesn't mean they are anti-guns.  I'm a gun owner and I love going out and making the skies rain with clay pigeon fragments.  But I still think it's a no brainer that we regulate guns.  They're dangerous!  If you want to use a very dangerous device then you shouldn't feel entitled to convenience.

And in my mind saying that there will still be AR-15s designed to exploit loopholes just means there are more loopholes that should be closed.  Either banning assault weapons is a good idea or a bad idea on the merits.  Just because someone has a loophole in the law doesn't change the merits of the ban.

I'm not so much talking you as some other people, especially earlier in the thread there was quite a wave of "The OP was citing some biased loony, we should support this bill!" It also bothers me that they're not doing a very good job at all of chasing loopholes. There's clearly some people who are out to litigate things they don't understand- if they don't understand that outlawing bullet buttons won't stop AR's from being used, they probably also don't understand how popular AR's are and what they're used for. Which is worrying, much more so than if they simply said AR class weapons should be banned full stop.

[Nadaka]

There are certain, limited, specific things that fall under "gun regulation" that I do approve of. But I do not at all approve of bans, lies (on either side) or panic based reactionary bullshit that only infringes on law abiding people. I am very very much pro responsible firearm ownership.

[kaijyuu]

There is no responsible ownership without a responsible use. Name a single responsible use for an assault rifle. Zombie apocalypse?

Giving a proper use for a weapon is reason enough for someone to potentially be able to own one, in my opinion. So a shooting range could reasonably be allowed to have rifles. A handgun could reasonably be allowed for self defense. Some guns are fine for show, being put on display or whatever. But outside of those situations, and outside of those specific owners, I see no reason to allow them (barring what the US constitution says, which isn't an authority on a philosophical level).

[Sensei]

There is no responsible ownership without a responsible use. Name a single responsible use for an assault rifle.

We've already had a number of people mention that they use AR's for hunting in this thread.

But seriously guys, SB249? Thoughts?

[mainiac]

I'm not so much talking you as some other people, especially earlier in the thread there was quite a wave of "The OP was citing some biased loony, we should support this bill!"

That WAS me earlier in the thread.  A cursory look at the internet showed that all the talk about this bill was a bunch of the gun nut types all repeating the same buzzwords.  If there were actually problems with the bill you'd expect someone with a little credibility or basic journalistic skills to have written something.

[Sensei]

But but... I wrote something... 

But seriously, I did do some research, and I detailed exactly what was wrong with this bill earlier- if you skipped my earlier posts, I suggest you read them because I think I did a pretty good job figuring out exactly what was going on. I think the main problem with all the anti-SB249 sites is that they didn't explain what was going on in terms that make sense to anyone who isn't already an AR-15 owner in California.

[mainiac]

I think the main problem with all the anti-SB249 sites is that they didn't explain what was going on in terms that make sense to anyone who isn't already an AR-15 owner in California.

I think the problem with them is that they used hyperbolic language and scare quotes in place of an argument.  It's not that they did a bad job conveying their message to people who weren't a member of their group, it's that they had no message for anyone who isn't blanket opposed to all gun control initiatives.

I for one don't get worked up about making LAW ABIDING CITIZENS into CRIMINALS or think that every gun law is a matter of CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS but when I looked up the law this morning 28 of the first 30 results all consisted of those two themes (the other two results were HuffPost and the text of the law itself.)  There was literally nothing to learn from what they were saying.

[Tellemurius]

Considering California is gonna break at least 3 amendments with this, i'll let them suffer the consequences.

[G-Flex]

Considering California is gonna break at least 3 amendments with this, i'll let them suffer the consequences.

Do go on.

[kingfisher1112]

People can only stand so much bullshit. If you ban them outright, shit's gonna get Nasty

[Tellemurius]

People can only stand so much bullshit. If you ban them outright, shit's gonna get Nasty

They did in D.C. to kill the crime, didn't really change much.

[kingfisher1112]

Besides, people will just hang on to their guns. They'll just hide em'. Either that or they will move states.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

To be fair, D.C. is a hive of scum and villainy.

Oh, and there are also some criminals.

[G-Flex]

People can only stand so much bullshit. If you ban them outright, shit's gonna get Nasty

They did in D.C. to kill the crime, didn't really change much.

D.C. is a pretty tiny place. It's really pretty obvious why it would still be really easy for anyone to get guns there.