Very easy question. What would you do?

[Mntneer]

I would agree with your sentiment on there are a lot we can do. This is where our opinions differ. I see the NRA and their power with the politicians as the roadblock and you find them to be the holy grail.

I don't find them the holy grail, as I don't find the ACLU the holy grail when it comes to protecting my 1st Amendment rights, but like the ACLU I do see the purpose they can serve.

IMHO the NRA needs to get back to the education roots, and shift away from the crazy rhetoric.

 

[WVUBRU]

I don't find them the holy grail, as I don't find the ACLU the holy grail when it comes to protecting my 1st Amendment rights, but like the ACLU I do see the purpose they can serve.

IMHO the NRA needs to get back to the education roots, and shift away from the crazy rhetoric.

Again, I agree with your assertion. But regardless of what we view how we want things to be, we need to deal with reality and the NRA in its present form is a problem in what they do with our political system.

I don't know if you remember but I use to talk about being a contributor to the ACLU. I found that they had become too political and I removed my support for the organization. This is what I would like reasonable people to do with the NRA if they don't support the political nature of what they spend a lot of their resources on.

 

[rog1187]

My logic is simple and again one many on this board won't like and I stated it earlier but will do it again. I see no purpose for those type of weapons in the general public. None. They are offensive and not defensive in nature. There is no purpose for a regular Joe to own one and having them in the general public threatens the general public and reducing that 1% of shooting with them makes the public safer. That 1% you speak of is a family member of someone that have had their lives forever changed for no reason.

If the citizens of the country wants an Amendment where they may arm themselves for personal protection and hunting, then let's have a constitution that protects that right. Assault weapons shouldn't be a part of it and neither should the ability to own an arsenal of guns. In my perfect world, if you want to own an arsenal, that exceeds protecting yourself or the ability to hunt and you are something more than a "citizen" and should be regulated in terms of the guns you own. Then if you break the regulations because you own too many guns, there are consequences. Again, I want less guns and I think this is a way to get a reduction in time. But it isn't going to happen anytime soon so conversation on it needs to be kept in perspective.

The VT shooter (who killed 32 people) did so with a two .22 caliber pistols and a 9mm handgun. The use of assault-style weapons in homicides is low compared to handguns...why the focus on those types of weapons?

 

[WVUBRU]

The VT shooter (who killed 32 people) did so with a two .22 caliber pistols and a 9mm handgun. The use of assault-style weapons in homicides is low compared to handguns...why the focus on those types of weapons?

Answered this morning above. Go read it

 

[rog1187]

Answered this morning above. Go read it

I don't need to read it...there have been more people killed by knives, blunt instruments, and personal weapons (hands, feet, etc.) than there have that have been killed by rifles...per the FBI. But please do continue to buy-in to the hysteria surrounding assault-style weapons.

 

[WVUBRU]

I don't need to read it...there have been more people killed by knives, blunt instruments, and personal weapons (hands, feet, etc.) than there have that have been killed by rifles...per the FBI. But please do continue to buy-in to the hysteria surrounding assault-style weapons.

My viewpoint and opinion is more than just the current statistics which I have written. Sorry, you have a childish level of understanding during a conversation among adults. You might want to excuse yourself and just shut up or take a step up in your ability to think. But at the present, you are not equipped to discuss the matter.

 

[COOL MAN]

Ignoring on the OT board is ridiculous. I can understand on other boards.

Not that it matters.....nor do I care (and I say this to you respectfully, DD) what you or anyone else thinks about how I choose to use the Board......but there are several here whose responses to issues of the day are so broken-record wacky partisan (and correspondingly, a chore to avoid in many cases due to sheer volume), that the new Ignore function has become virtually a user tool for me.

Coincidentally, it got a fair workout in the aftermath of Saturday's game. With "luck", as the season progresses......and as we presumably lose additional games......my number of new Ignores will decline as those who continually have a need to broken-record blame someone (the coaches or the quarterback or the AD or the refs or anyone else) are already on my list.

For the record, the overwhelming majority of those on my Ignore list.....probably 90%+.......indeed originate from posters on the MMB and TBL.

 

[rog1187]

My viewpoint and opinion is more than just the current statistics which I have written. Sorry, you have a childish level of understanding during a conversation among adults. You might want to excuse yourself and just shut up or take a step up in your ability to think. But at the present, you are not equipped to discuss the matter.

Your opinions aren't based on fact...fact is handguns are the major type of weapon used in homicides. But please do keep believing in fairy tales and boogey men.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Not that it matters.....nor do I care (and I say this to you respectfully, DD) what you or anyone else thinks about how I choose to use the Board......but there are several here whose responses to issues of the day are so broken-record wacky partisan (and correspondingly, a chore to avoid in many cases due to sheer volume), that the new Ignore function has become virtually a user tool for me.

Coincidentally, it got a fair workout in the aftermath of Saturday's game. With "luck", as the season progresses......and as we presumably lose additional games......my number of new Ignores will decline as those who continually have a need to broken-record blame someone (the coaches or the quarterback or the AD or the refs or anyone else) are already on my list.

For the record, the overwhelming majority of those on my Ignore list.....probably 90%+.......indeed originate from posters on the MMB and TBL.

Fair enough. I have a fairly long list of shitheads on my ignore list from TBL. I always figure this board is for debate and conversation on controversial issues and expect a certain amount of "idiocracy" if you will.

 

[TarHeelEer]

I didn't say banned. I am not a gun expert in the least but i see no reason for assault type weapons and semi automatic guns being protected under the second amendment for the general public. This is a complex issue requiring a complex solution and i don't pretend to have the complete answer. I just know the status quo isn't working and i would support a different direction and when smart people can present options, i will either support or be against the proposal. At the present, i am sickened by the nra and those that support that bs.

A large majority of mass shootings involve semi-auto pistols, not assault rifles.

 

[rog1187]

A large majority of mass shootings involve semi-auto pistols, not assault rifles.

Yes a fact...look for him to lash out at you.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

My viewpoint and opinion is more than just the current statistics which I have written. Sorry, you have a childish level of understanding during a conversation among adults. You might want to excuse yourself and just shut up or take a step up in your ability to think. But at the present, you are not equipped to discuss the matter.

I don't think the personal insult was called for and is exactly the type of thing you have complained about in the past of others doing.

The point I think he is trying to make is your assertion of assault weapons needing banned does nothing to combat the problem you are trying to address which is gun violence. Simply put, they are a very miniscule contributor. With that said, you did list your reasoning as you just don't think they are necessary for people to own. In my opinion, those in opposition see this as creating a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist and further, you limit the consumer's option based on personal feeling and no substantive backup data.

To create a parallel analogy. The same could be said for high end sports cars and motorcycles. Both contribute far more to the unnecessary death tolls mounting on the highway due to their excessive speeds. Driving is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right yet is responsible for far more fatalities. The assault weapons ban would be akin to banning high end sports cars and crotch rockets when you are wanting to combat DUIs.

 

[rog1187]

I don't think the personal insult was called for and is exactly the type of thing you have complained about in the past of others doing.

The point I think he is trying to make is your assertion of assault weapons needing banned does nothing to combat the problem you are trying to address which is gun violence. Simply put, they are a very miniscule contributor. With that said, you did list your reasoning as you just don't think they are necessary for people to own. In my opinion, those in opposition see this as creating a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist and further, you limit the consumer's option based on personal feeling and no substantive backup data.

To create a parallel analogy. The same could be said for high end sports cars and motorcycles. Both contribute far more to the unnecessary death tolls mounting on the highway due to their excessive speeds. Driving is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right yet is responsible for far more fatalities. The assault weapons ban would be akin to banning high end sports cars and crotch rockets when you are wanting to combat DUIs.

Yep

What we need (IMO) is not to jump in and make any knee-jerk decisions on what needs to be done based on media hysteria. I think there are different types of homicide happening that can be addressed in different manners - 1) heat of the moment crimes of passion - is there something in the background that might predict it and is there something that can be done to combat/prevent that?, 2) homicides happening while another crime is being committed - I say gang-related, drug-related, etc go in this category and maybe strengthening jail terms and cracking down on illegal gun purchases might work/help here, 3) mental illness/mental break - work/office shootings, shootings at schools and other soft-target/gun-free zones - is this where mental health intervention might come into play? I believe most of these shooters get guns legally (or in some cases steal them from someone they know right before they go off).

IMO this is a people problem and it won't be solved by taking away their method of committing the crime. You have to dig deeper to identify the motivation.

 

[WVUBRU]

I don't think the personal insult was called for and is exactly the type of thing you have complained about in the past of others doing.

The point I think he is trying to make is your assertion of assault weapons needing banned does nothing to combat the problem you are trying to address which is gun violence. Simply put, they are a very miniscule contributor. With that said, you did list your reasoning as you just don't think they are necessary for people to own. In my opinion, those in opposition see this as creating a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist and further, you limit the consumer's option based on personal feeling and no substantive backup data.

To create a parallel analogy. The same could be said for high end sports cars and motorcycles. Both contribute far more to the unnecessary death tolls mounting on the highway due to their excessive speeds. Driving is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right yet is responsible for far more fatalities. The assault weapons ban would be akin to banning high end sports cars and crotch rockets when you are wanting to combat DUIs.

I understand but if one would read my post before even responding, they can easily ascertain my comments are not about mass killings. It is broader than that. So, his comment is absolutely worthless and seeing his worthless comments for 15 years is too much. Don't like, it, put me on ignore. I don't care.

 

[rog1187]

I understand but if one would read my post before even responding, they can easily ascertain my comments are not about mass killings. It is broader than that. So, his comment is absolutely worthless and seeing his worthless comments for 15 years is too much. Don't like, it, put me on ignore. I don't care.

My comment (FACTS) weren't about mass killings either...it was about ALL HOMICIDES...sorry you didn't catch the broadness of my statement...I figured you would understand that there are no known mass killings by blunt instruments or hands and feet. Therefore any actions towards assault weapons is not factually based to have any impact on ALL HOMICIDES.

 

[WVUBRU]

A large majority of mass shootings involve semi-auto pistols, not assault rifles.

Are you attempting to make a point to my opinion? Let me clarify for you as you may have not seen my opinion. I want to amend the 2nd amendment and I'm all for eliminating the need for a semi-auto pistol for the general public.

Disagree if you wish and I do realize my perfect world will not happen so no need to comment on that. But my opinion is far beyond assault rifles. I also include semi auto weapons as I don't see a need for them in the General public.

 

[WVUBRU]

My comment (FACTS) weren't about mass killings either...it was about ALL HOMICIDES...sorry you didn't catch the broadness of my statement...I figured you would understand that there are no known mass killings by blunt instruments or hands and feet. Therefore any actions towards assault weapons is not factually based to have any impact on ALL HOMICIDES.

I want to impact the gun issue in this country and reduce the number of guns. You are talking homicides. My comments are deeper.

 

[Mntneer]

Are you attempting to make a point to my opinion? Let me clarify for you as you may have not seen my opinion. I want to amend the 2nd amendment and I'm all for eliminating the need for a semi-auto pistol for the general public.

Disagree if you wish and I do realize my perfect world will not happen so no need to comment on that. But my opinion is far beyond assault rifles. I also include semi auto weapons as I don't see a need for them in the General public.

You understand the vast majority of pistols are semi-auto's? Very very few breaching loading/single shot pistols out there these days.

 

[WVUBRU]

You understand the vast majority of pistols are semi-auto's? Very very few breaching loading/single shot pistols out there these days.

We might have a different definition of "semi-auto". Since I am not a gun expert in the least, I am probably not classifying my intent correctly in terms of my response.

 

[Mntneer]

We might have a different definition of "semi-auto". Since I am not a gun expert in the least, I am probably not classifying my intent correctly in terms of my response.

Even revolvers are "semi-auto", one pull of the trigger one shot. It's the mechanical "action" that separates them from something like a Glock, that and ammo capacity.

 

[rog1187]

Even revolvers are "semi-auto", one pull of the trigger one shot. It's the mechanical "action" that separates them from something like a Glock, that and ammo capacity.

I was trying to post pics of a semi-auto pistol as an example...versus an 'assault rifle' - can you do that? I can't get it to work.

 

[WVUBRU]

Even revolvers are "semi-auto", one pull of the trigger one shot. It's the mechanical "action" that separates them from something like a Glock, that and ammo capacity.

Ok. As it pertains to handguns, my perspective would not include something such as a revolver for personal ownership. But my opinion would be an amended 2nd Amendment that would limit the amount of revolvers one could own as a citizen. If a person would want to own more than whatever the limit would be, they would have to be classified as something such as a dealer and that is where the freedom would be impacted significantly. And this is where my opinion would differ greatly with a hard-core NRA supporter as it pertains to having their 2nd Amendment right impacted.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Ok. As it pertains to handguns, my perspective would not include something such as a revolver for personal ownership. But my opinion would be an amended 2nd Amendment that would limit the amount of revolvers one could own as a citizen. If a person would want to own more than whatever the limit would be, they would have to be classified as something such as a dealer and that is where the freedom would be impacted significantly. And this is where my opinion would differ greatly with a hard-core NRA supporter as it pertains to having their 2nd Amendment right impacted.

I think it would differ from most people who own firearms, not just NRA supporters, let alone, hard core NRA supporters.

In your vernacular use, you are including something like the below picture which is a very common shotgun for hunting.

Most gun enthusiasts like myself have concerns with the opinions of the uneducated and how laws should be impacted. They make comments without understanding the implications of what they are saying because they don't understand the what defines certain types of firearms. The reality is most of what people are concerned with break down to merely aesthetics. There is no less lethality and no difference in functionality in a majority of cases. It doesn't stop the crusade against them though and as I said earlier, the common sense of it is lost upon them offering a solution as they don't understand basics.

You may as well say people need to be restricted to black powder firearms only.

Not to mention, this whole discussion seems to be centered on ensuring the populace maintains the right to hunt or for personal protection and that is certainly not the intent behind the framer's insistence of it being in our constitution. Their intent was so if the country were invaded by enemies foreign or domestic, we could as a populace defend it.

 

[WVUBRU]

I think it would differ from most people who own firearms, not just NRA supporters, let alone, hard core NRA supporters.

In your vernacular use, you are including something like the below picture which is a very common shotgun for hunting.

Most gun enthusiasts like myself have concerns with the opinions of the uneducated and how laws should be impacted. They make comments without understanding the implications of what they are saying because they don't understand the what defines certain types of firearms. The reality is most of what people are concerned with break down to merely aesthetics. There is no less lethality and no difference in functionality in a majority of cases. It doesn't stop the crusade against them though and as I said earlier, the common sense of it is lost upon them offering a solution as they don't understand basics.

no

 

[TarHeelEer]

And what makes it even dumber of the idiot that can't read anything before kneejerking a response

Would such kneejerk be banning assault weapons when they aren't usually the issue? Oh nevermind, carry on, I swore to myself I wasn't getting involved with Bud's protoge.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Their intent was so if the country were invaded by enemies foreign or domestic, we could as a populace defend it.

I don't think that intent is very valid anymore. Invading forces would most likely have advanced weaponry that would make Joe GunOwner pretty useless, I would guess. I could be wrong, we are talking hypotheticals after all.

I'm not suggesting we strip the 2nd amendment by that statement .... just times are very different now.

 

[rog1187]

Would such kneejerk be banning assault weapons when they aren't usually the issue? Oh nevermind, carry on, I swore to myself I wasn't getting involved with Bud's protoge.

He can't articulate the type of weapon he's talking about...yet it is everyone else's fault.

 

[Mntneer]

I don't think that intent is very valid anymore. Invading forces would most likely have advanced weaponry that would make Joe GunOwner pretty useless, I would guess. I could be wrong, we are talking hypotheticals after all.

I'm not suggesting we strip the 2nd amendment by that statement .... just times are very different now.

Are they really? Small arms have played a huge role in places like Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc. Also, in this country of "citizen soldiers", many of those manning the heavy weaponry could be on the side of those opposed to the government.

In any event. That still doesn't' change that fundamental right, at least IMHO.

 

[bornaneer]

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Are they really? Small arms have played a huge role in places like Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc. Also, in this country of "citizen soldiers", many of those manning the heavy weaponry could be on the side of those opposed to the government.

In any event. That still doesn't' change that fundamental right, at least IMHO.

They certainly are compared to when the constitution was written. Back then if you had a gun you were pretty much as well armed as anybody you'd come across. Nobody is going to be able to invade and take over our country with small arms. If you are talking about an uprising against our government within our borders, then perhaps that is different depending on the uprising. Even at that, if the military wasn't on the side of the uprising, any weapons we have wouldn't be much of a match against tanks and such.

 

[WVUBRU]

They certainly are compared to when the constitution was written. Back then if you had a gun you were pretty much as well armed as anybody you'd come across. Nobody is going to be able to invade and take over our country with small arms. If you are talking about an uprising against our government within our borders, then perhaps that is different depending on the uprising. Even at that, if the military wasn't on the side of the uprising, any weapons we have wouldn't be much of a match against tanks and such.

Exactly. So, if someone can tell me the purpose of having certain weapons covered under the 2nd Amendment is really making our society better, I would love to hear it. To this date, I haven't heard one. The best argument I have heard is "if we outlaw certain types, that is a slippery slope with the 2nd Amendment". Ok.......Amend the 2nd Amendment so it isn't a slippery slope and bring that part of the constitution to fit today's society.

Again, this is theory and a dream for those that don't realize it.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Exactly. So, if someone can tell me the purpose of having certain weapons covered under the 2nd Amendment is really making our society better, I would love to hear it. To this date, I haven't heard one. The best argument I have heard is "if we outlaw certain types, that is a slippery slope with the 2nd Amendment". Ok.......Amend the 2nd Amendment so it isn't a slippery slope and bring that part of the constitution to fit today's society.

Again, this is theory and a dream for those that don't realize it.

I want to reiterate that my statement was not meant to support the removal of the 2nd amendment at all. I had not point I was trying make other than the difference between now and then and how it pertains to the intent of the 2nd amendment.

I have no issues whatsoever with the amendment. I do believe we have issues, but as I said someplace else, I think the solution to the "gun problem" probably has absolutely nothing to do with guns at all.

 

[WVUBRU]

I want to reiterate that my statement was not meant to support the removal of the 2nd amendment at all. I had not point I was trying make other than the difference between now and then and how it pertains to the intent of the 2nd amendment.

I have no issues whatsoever with the amendment. I do believe we have issues, but as I said someplace else, I think the solution to the "gun problem" probably has absolutely nothing to do with guns at all.

I know. My opinion differs from yours and I'm asking this question. But you did nail the issue with the 2nd Amendment and that is it is antiquated and in my opinion, that is one of the roots to a very big and complex problem.

 

[Mntneer]

They certainly are compared to when the constitution was written. Back then if you had a gun you were pretty much as well armed as anybody you'd come across. Nobody is going to be able to invade and take over our country with small arms. If you are talking about an uprising against our government within our borders, then perhaps that is different depending on the uprising. Even at that, if the military wasn't on the side of the uprising, any weapons we have wouldn't be much of a match against tanks and such.

The same argument could be applied to the 1st amendment. When written you either spoke loudly at public events, or were wealthy enough to be able to afford some form of printing press.

Small arms wouldn't be a match for heavy artillery, but it wouldn't have to be. It still would offer the citizens the chance, how slight it may be, to resist, and it wouldn't be the first time in history that small arms made a difference against a larger "heavier" force.

 

[Mntneer]

Exactly. So, if someone can tell me the purpose of having certain weapons covered under the 2nd Amendment is really making our society better, I would love to hear it. To this date, I haven't heard one. The best argument I have heard is "if we outlaw certain types, that is a slippery slope with the 2nd Amendment". Ok.......Amend the 2nd Amendment so it isn't a slippery slope and bring that part of the constitution to fit today's society.

Again, this is theory and a dream for those that don't realize it.

The 2nd amendment isn't about making our society better, but you are correct the only way to enact the reforms you would like to see would require amending it.

 

[dave]

I want to impact the gun issue in this country and reduce the number of guns. You are talking homicides. My comments are deeper.

I want to impact the number of blathering blowhard fuktards in this country. So stfu.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

I don't think that intent is very valid anymore. Invading forces would most likely have advanced weaponry that would make Joe GunOwner pretty useless, I would guess. I could be wrong, we are talking hypotheticals after all.

I'm not suggesting we strip the 2nd amendment by that statement .... just times are very different now.

Small Arms can and do allow an insurgency an opportunity to resist. With adequate leadership and strategy, you can bog down an entire very well equipped military. We've seen it time and again in damn near every conflict since WWII. You also have to factor in the willingness of today's society to unleash the hell of our military on our own populace and even the military's willingness to engage our own people.

How bout this scenario, what if society goes tits up due to some catastrophic event? Super disease, full on collapse of the Gov't, failure of our financial apparatus, etc. All reasons for why but mostly for reasons you can't think of. Now I'm not some doomsday prepper but I'm also not a lamb. I'm a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner, collector, and shooter. Why should I be punished for something less than 1% are responsible for?

As I said previously, I think it's just the cost of doing business as harsh as that sounds specifically to victims of gun violence, but it's reality. There are literally thousands of things more deadly that we accept everyday without making legitimate change or attempting to and those aren't even constitutionally protected. Yet for some reason, because people are scared of how something looks we have to try and solve a problem by treating the instrument and symptom but not the disease.

 

[TarHeelEer]

The best argument

Because noone takes you seriously. You haven't given a good reason to ban them in the first place.

 

[WVUBRU]

Because noone takes you seriously. You haven't given a good reason to ban them in the first place.

lmao. dumbass

 

[dave]

lmao. dumbass

Your loser brother taught you well.