How do you feel about guns laws in Texas?

[DC23]

How do you feel about guns laws in Texas?

If there is one state which springs to mind when you think “guns” (whether for positive or negative reasons), it is probably Texas.

Texas is known for its loose stance toward firearms, but it is also known for its mass shootings. In recent weeks, these include the Walmart massacre in El Paso where 22 people were killed, along with the most recent shooting in Odessa, which claimed the lives of eight (including the gunman).

In 2019, Texas passed laws to further reduce restrictions on firearms. Those laws have just gone into effect.

How do you feel about Texas’s gun laws? Should they be reconsidered in light of recent events or not?

[koriwhat]

just like legal weed coming to tx, it's all smoke and mirrors in order to usher in the blue fascists.

i'm ok with our gun laws and see no reason to change them.

[DMC]

Two opposing schools of thought on the matter

1. More guns in the hands of more law abiding citizens means more protection for those people (some better than none)
2. Fewer guns in the hands of law abiding citizens means those citizens cannot arbitrarily decide to go on a GTA V rampage (people are law abiding until they aren't)

1 assumes people can be trusted to carry firearms
2 assumes it's riskier to have a gun than to be unarmed

1 accounts for being involved in a mass shooting
2 considers all those who aren't but are still carrying a firearm

The temp solution is to have more certified watch people, someone with the proven wherewithal to carry and protect large groups of people, someone other than police who won't stand guard. Since we cannot strip guns from would be shooters, since we don't know who they are or will be, we can only hope we don't encounter them or we can hope to have some means of self defense if we do. Some is better than none.

An outright gun ban is the only way to actually effect it, since most of these shooters legally acquire their guns and seem to be enamored by assault weapons, likely a video game or "wannabe GI Joe" fetish. Some kill with handguns, maybe for the same reasons.

So 2nd amendment needs revisited as does the 1st (reporting non stop on the shooter, deification of the shooter which spurns copycats who are right on the edge anyhow.) Don't advertise manifestos, but social media platforms makes it so that MSM isn't required. The feds have to get ahold of social media and police it tighter, things need to be approved before being posted. MSM has to have the same restrictions they have on kids, no names or images of mass shooters, no getting famous by killing people.

For the 2nd A, whittle it down to hunting shotguns with 5 rnd mags only, no 8 round on guns not modified for sporting clays, hunting rifles with cap of 4 rounds and revolvers. Sure you can still shoot people with those but you have to start somewhere.

[ducks]

Think we should try those nation wide!
Especially in Detroit Chicago

[Chris]

Bad people don't really care about laws.

[Chucho]

Bad people don't really care about laws.

Illegal doesnt mean inaccessible. It's the elephant in the room everyone shakes the...hoof(?) of and then decides to ignore it. Kinda like inner city violence.

[Thread]

Bad people don't really care about laws.

Tell it, Chris. Testify!!!

[Blake]

Illegal doesnt mean inaccessible.

That's not 100% true

[ducks]

So why do we tempt people to drink and drive with bars ?

[Spurs Homer]

There are more guns in texas than in any other state -

so this makes Texas the safest state in the world.

Oh shit - wait!

[Blake]

So why do we tempt people to drink and drive with bars ?

Stupid post

[spurraider21]

Illegal doesnt mean inaccessible.
it's not a 1:1 ratio but its absurd to claim there's no effect, imo

prohibition didn't end alcohol consumption but noticeably decreased it

[Chucho]

it's not a 1:1 ratio but its absurd to claim there's no effect, imo

prohibition didn't end alcohol consumption but noticeably decreased it

Anddddd the crime spree it created hasnt been close to being matched since then. Prohibition profits put the Mafia in insane power for 50 years. So yeah....fewer people drank, but those who wanted a drink got it...very fucking easily too and it begat the most powerful crime Syndicate in our history, one that went unrecognized/denied by the Feds for a few decades. Not a really good example to use, honestly.

[Chucho]

it's not a 1:1 ratio but its absurd to claim there's no effect, imo


Where are you getting that from? I didn't say that, like at all.

[spurraider21]

Anddddd the crime spree it created hasnt been close to being matched since then. Prohibition profits put the Mafia in insane power for 50 years. So yeah....fewer people drank, but those who wanted a drink got it...very fucking easily too and it begat the most powerful crime Syndicate in our history, one that went unrecognized/denied by the Feds for a few decades.
this is moving the goalpost. look at your previous post to see what we were discussing


Not a really good example to use, honestly.
no, its actually a good example to show that bans decrease the targeted behavior

[Chucho]

this is moving the goalpost. look at your previous post to see what we were discussing


no, its actually a good example to show that bans decrease the targeted behavior

You're basing that on putting words in my mouth. So, yeah, that moving goalposts thing...go re-read my comment.

[spurraider21]

Where are you getting that from? I didn't say that, like at all.
you were agreeing with chris' post that "bad people dont care about laws" and then said that illegality =/= inaccessibility. did the illegality of alcohol decrease the accessibility? the noticeable decrease in consumption would seem to indicate so

taken together, there is an implication that a law implementing a ban is futile

[Chucho]

you were agreeing with chris' post that "bad people dont care about laws" and then said that illegality =/= inaccessibility. did the illegality of alcohol decrease the accessibility? the noticeable decrease in consumption would seem to indicate so

taken together, there is an implication that a law implementing a ban is futile

You said I said it doesnt make any effect whatsoever. That wasnt said or inferred in anyway. No need to lie

Did the law prevent people from getting drinks? A small percentage. The collateral damage from that law was an unmatched rise in crime. Most people who wanted drinks got drinks. Do you really think prohibition was successful?

If anything, your example proves me right- illegal doesnt mean inaccessible . Same today with drugs and prostitutes.

[Blake]

Anddddd the crime spree it created hasnt been close to being matched since then. Prohibition profits put the Mafia in insane power for 50 years. So yeah....fewer people drank, but those who wanted a drink got it...very fucking easily too and it begat the most powerful crime Syndicate in our history, one that went unrecognized/denied by the Feds for a few decades. Not a really good example to use, honestly.

Because making and selling guns is just as easy as making and selling moonshine?

[Thread]

So why do we tempt people to drink and drive with bars ?

Tell it, ducks. Testify!!!

[spurraider21]

You said I said it doesnt make any effect whatsoever. That wasnt said or inferred in anyway. No need to lie

Did the law prevent people from getting drinks? A small percentage. The collateral damage from that law was an unmatched rise in crime. Most people who wanted drinks got drinks. Do you really think prohibition was successful?

If anything, your example proves me right- illegal doesnt mean inaccessible . Same today with drugs and prostitutes.
i dont think anybody is arguing that any law will eliminate the targeted conduct by 100%. a gun ban won't. prohibition didn't.

but prohibition did reduce alcohol consumption pretty heavily. i dont see why gun ownership/use would be much different.

the negative side effects of prohibition are well documented. i dont believe they are likely to replicate in the modern day. do you?

[Chucho]

Because making and selling guns is just as easy as making and selling moonshine?

Who said that?

The only point made is that illegal doesnt mean inaccessible, pretty simple concept, even with words being put in people's mouths. There will be a black market for weapons if a "prohibition" happens. Just like during prohibition, just like with drugs, just like with hookers.

People who want something enough will get it, period. Dunno why you and 21 are so intent to pump a well that isnt even dug, but whatevs.

[Thread]

i dont think anybody is arguing that any law will eliminate the targeted conduct by 100%. a gun ban won't. prohibition didn't.

but prohibition did reduce alcohol consumption pretty heavily. i dont see why gun ownership/use would be much different.

the negative side effects of prohibition are well documented. i dont believe they are likely to replicate in the modern day. do you?

You ain't gettin' the guns, 21. That's it, Fort Pitt. Savvy? You gonna volunteer to go door-to-door pryin' 'em loose from cold, dead fingers? Nope

[Thread]

You said I said it doesnt make any effect whatsoever. That wasnt said or inferred in anyway. No need to lie

Did the law prevent people from getting drinks? A small percentage. The collateral damage from that law was an unmatched rise in crime. Most people who wanted drinks got drinks. Do you really think prohibition was successful?

If anything, your example proves me right- illegal doesnt mean inaccessible . Same today with drugs and prostitutes.

Tell it, Cooch. Testify!!!

[Chucho]

i dont think anybody is arguing that any law will eliminate the targeted conduct by 100%. a gun ban won't. prohibition didn't.

but prohibition did reduce alcohol consumption pretty heavily. i dont see why gun ownership/use would be much different.

the negative side effects of prohibition are well documented. i dont believe they are likely to replicate in the modern day. do you?

No one was arguing that a ban is futile to begin with. The only point made was clear and concise. Maybe dont make such massive leaps in logic.

People are going to get what they want if they want it. Junkies, sex addicts, gun addicts.

To answer your question, it wont be as bad as prohibition, but the black market for weapons already exists. to deny that there will be a black market for weapons is ridiculous. There already is a fairly large one, we see it with inner city violence (stolen and smuggled) and cartel shipments that get busted are commonly found with huge caches of weapons.

The cartels, like their Mafia predecessors, will follow the money. The illegal market that already exists will just boom.

[spurraider21]

You ain't gettin' the guns, 21. That's it, Fort Pitt. Savvy? You gonna volunteer to go door-to-door pryin' 'em loose from cold, dead fingers? Nope
shhh, adults are talking

[Thread]

shhh, adults are talking

Just checkin' assholes; I spotted you-&-you fit the bill.

[spurraider21]

No one was arguing that a ban is futile to begin with. The only point made was clear and concise. Maybe dont make such massive leaps in logic.
the inference was clear given the your comment and the comment you were agreeing with


People are going to get what they want if they want it. Junkies, sex addicts, gun addicts.
this goes back to my point, which you claimed was a strawman. a ban WILL decrease the activity. just won't eliminate it. i think thats a very good start. we still have laws against murder even though murders still happen.

and this point DOES suggest that a ban would be futile. otherwise what's the point of throwing this out there?


To answer your question, it wont be as bad as prohibition, but the black market for weapons already exists. to deny that there will be a black market for weapons is ridiculous. There already is a fairly large one, we see it with inner city violence (stolen and smuggled) and cartel shipments that get busted are commonly found with huge caches of weapons.

The cartels, like their Mafia predecessors, will follow the money. The illegal market that already exists will just boom.
yeah, there will still be black markets. there are black markets for illegal drugs. people get their hands on them. but to a lesser degree than if they were legal. thats my whole point

[spurraider21]

Just checkin' assholes; I spotted you-&-you fit the bill.
cept i'm not in favor of a blanket ban on guns, repeal of 2A.

farthest i'd like it to go would be mandatory buyback program of semi auto rifles, and strict limits on handgun capacity

[Thread]

cept i'm not in favor of a blanket ban on guns, repeal of 2A.

farthest i'd like it to go would be mandatory buyback program of semi auto rifles, and strict limits on handgun capacity

I see you, 21. So does the NRA. You want to get your foot in the door, then push us to the slope that is slippery. No. You can't be trusted because your goal is not honest & forthright. We cannot deal, son. No.

Like I've said: this, like all other things American will run it's course. Each of us has to hope & pray that we ain't unlucky and get shot in the mean time.

[Chucho]

the inference was clear given the your comment and the comment you were agreeing with


this goes back to my point, which you claimed was a strawman. a ban WILL decrease the activity. just won't eliminate it. i think thats a very good start. we still have laws against murder even though murders still happen.


yeah, there will still be black markets. there are black markets for illegal drugs. people get their hands on them. but to a lesser degree than if they were legal. thats my whole point

LOL, no. Chris said literally, "bad people dont care about laws". I said "illegal doesnt mean inaccessible". Beyond benefitting your argument, I dont get how you get to that conclusion in ten words.

The point I was making, regardless of your disagreeable leap in logic, is pretty much validated with your post. People will get what they want, even if it's illegal. This is why black markets exist. That's the point that was made, hopefully its clarified well enough for ya.

[Blake]

accessible for some =/= accessible for all

If it's illegal not all people will get what they want if it's that much harder to get

[Chucho]

accessible for some =/= accessible for all

If it's illegal not all people will get what they want if it's that much harder to get

No one said that it wouldn't help. No one said that it would be completely ineffective either. But the fact remains that there is already a large black market for weapons and the lovely cartels to the south of us have no problem accommodating the American appetite for contraband.

[Blake]

People will get what they want, even if it's illegal. This is why black markets exist.


No one said that it wouldn't help.

That's literally what you're implying in the top post.

I agree it won't be completely ineffective. If a tougher gun law stops just one person from killing, would it not be worth it?

[spurraider21]

LOL, no. Chris said literally, "bad people dont care about laws". I said "illegal doesnt mean inaccessible". Beyond benefitting your argument, I dont get how you get to that conclusion in ten words.

The point I was making, regardless of your disagreeable leap in logic, is pretty much validated with your post. People will get what they want, even if it's illegal. This is why black markets exist. That's the point that was made, hopefully its clarified well enough for ya.
again. this creates the inference that bans are futile and have no effect. a point which you simultaneously deny making

[spurraider21]

"i'm not saying that bans would have no effect, i'm just saying that everyone will just get things illegally anyway"

[SnakeBoy]

If a tougher gun law stops just one person from killing, would it not be worth it?

That's truly the dumbest argument the left makes. If restricting <insert any right> helps just one person...derp.

[Pavlov]

:lol I suggested what amounts to a BOLO after a weird 911 call and ST Oath Keepers blew a gasket.

[SnakeBoy]

farthest i'd like it to go would be mandatory buyback program of semi auto rifles, and strict limits on handgun capacity

Make M14's and .38 Specials great again!

[spurraider21]

Make M14's and .38 Specials great again!
sorry if that crushes your fantasy of single handedly defeating the US military in the event of tyranny

[Pavlov]

sorry if that crushes your fantasy of single handedly defeating the US military in the event of tyrannyPADDOCK STILL COULD HAVE SHOT 400 PEOPLE WITH A REVOLVER 300 FEET UP AND 1000 FEET AWAY IT'S JUST SCIENCE

[Blake]

That's truly the dumbest argument the left makes. If restricting <insert any right> helps just one person...derp.

K, what's the downside of restricting <insert assault style rifle>?

[SnakeBoy]

K, what's the downside of restricting <insert assault style rifle>?

That nothing to do with my comment but I'll answer anyway.

I don't own one so I'd say none imo, but then you'll just move onto blaming <insert "style" rifle>.

Oh and...

lol "assault style"

[Pavlov]

That nothing to do with my comment but I'll answer anyway.

I don't own one so I'd say none imo, but then you'll just move onto blaming <insert "style" rifle>.

Oh and...

lol "assault style"People actually say "assault style" because if we don't ST Oath Keepers launch into their one of their diversionary technical gun term diatribes. See: clip/magazine.

[basquetbol]

In the redneck south gun laws are expected to be lax, especially with open carry, however, an alarming amount of legal non white individuals who open carry throughout Texas and other states in the redneck south gets the cops called on them and then the cops come out guns already drawn, seems like whites only want whites to open carry and exercise their second amendment, not nonwhites.

[SnakeBoy]

PADDOCK STILL COULD HAVE SHOT 400 PEOPLE WITH A REVOLVER 300 FEET UP AND 1000 FEET AWAY IT'S JUST SCIENCE

https://cdn.quotesgram.com/small/81/34/688407726-20617396.jpg

[Blake]

That nothing to do with my comment but I'll answer anyway.

I don't own one so I'd say none imo, but then you'll just move onto blaming <insert "style" rifle>.

Oh and...

lol "assault style"

Well if there's no downside but there's potential upside then you seem pretty stupid.

[SnakeBoy]

People actually say "assault style" because if we don't ST Oath Keepers launch into their one of their diversionary technical gun term diatribes. See: clip/magazine.

No they say it because they won't take the time to learn what they are talking about. Even though it's not complicated at all.

I don't mind "clip" but when they start talking about "silencers" it is annoying since there is no such thing outside of hollywood.

[SnakeBoy]

Well if there's no downside but there's potential upside then you seem pretty stupid.

Still doesn't make your if it helps just one person argument any better. Why not stick with the tried and true what about the children defense.

[spurraider21]

Still doesn't make your if it helps just one person argument any better. Why not stick with the tried and true what about the children defense.
but enough about abortions

[Pavlov]

No they say it because they won't take the time to learn what they are talking about. Even though it's not complicated at all.So what are you saying they are talking about?

I don't mind "clip" but when they start talking about "silencers" it is annoying since there is no such thing outside of hollywood.
What do they sell here?

https://www.silencershop.com/media/wysiwyg/Silencer-Shop-Team-2015.jpg

[SnakeBoy]

So what are you saying they are talking about?

I'm saying technical terms matter. Take for instance, under Feinstein's proposed assault weapons ban the only gun I have that would have been banned is a Ruger .22 which is the least lethal gun I own.

To me it weakens the arguments from people who are advocating for changes in gun laws but haven't spent 5 or 10 minutes watching any one of dozens (maybe 100's) of youtube videos explaining the differences in the types of weapons available.

[Pavlov]

I'm saying technical terms matter. Take for instance, under Feinstein's proposed assault weapons ban the only gun I have that would have been banned is a Ruger .22 which is the least lethal gun I own.

To me it weakens the arguments from people who are advocating for changes in gun laws but haven't spent 5 or 10 minutes watching any one of dozens (maybe 100's) of youtube videos explaining the differences in the types of weapons available.That was one example. What are you saying everyone else is talking about?

Honestly its weird that this is the alleged holdup.

[SnakeBoy]

So what are you saying they are talking about?

What do they sell here?

https://www.silencershop.com/media/wysiwyg/Silencer-Shop-Team-2015.jpg

I have no idea never been to that store. Noise cancelling earplugs for a good night sleep, sound proofing insulation, or maybe an accessory for an AR15 that lowers the sound of the gunshot to that of a rock concert (you know silent like in the movies).

Is it really your position that the most effective way to "sell" gun control is to be completely ignorant about guns?

Just to clarify my position, I'm not really against gun control measures. I just think instead of "I'm pro 2nd ammendment but I don't like this gun and I don't like that gun", we should be going to the source and talking about changing or eliminating the 2nd amendment since the founders intent no longer applies. Until then "shall not be infringed". Actually, I think I went through this specifically with spurraider21 once so it's funny he thinks I want to fight our military.

[Pavlov]

I have no idea never been to that store. Noise cancelling earplugs for a good night sleep, sound proofing insulation, or maybe an accessory for an AR15 that lowers the sound of the gunshot to that of a rock concert (you know silent like in the movies).They call them silencers.

I assume they know things about guns. I don't see a huge advantage in calling them suppressors tbh. they work as well as they work.


Is it really your position that the most effective way to "sell" gun control is to be completely ignorant about guns?What should we call assault style weapons outside of specific legislation?

[Xevious]

What should we call assault style weapons outside of specific legislation?
My issue with "assault weapon" is that it requires definition at all. It's a made up term. Better just to attempt a semiauto rifle/carbine ban. That way magazine size, caliber, barrel length/shroud, stock, grips, and all this other arbitrary stuff doesn't matter. If you're going to do something, do it.

[SnakeBoy]

They call them silencers.

I assume they know things about guns. I don't see a huge advantage in calling them suppressors tbh. they work as well as they work.

What should we call assault style weapons outside of specific legislation?

Context matters. A shop calling them silencers is fine, they are trying to sell them. Anti gun people are trying to ban them because they think they work like the one's in the movies. They don't, it makes them sound ignorant.



What should we call assault style weapons outside of specific legislation?

You should be talking about "style" at all. Why ban the "assault style" but not the "ranch style"

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ytbihUf0wwM/hqdefault.jpg

Same gun same capability but I guess one looks scarier to some people.

[Pavlov]

Context matters. A shop calling them silencers is fine, they are trying to sell them. Anti gun people are trying to ban them because they think they work like the one's in the movies. They don't, it makes them sound ignorant.But everyone knows what they're talking about. Not that big a deal tbh.



You should be talking about "style" at all. Why ban the "assault style" but not the "ranch style"

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ytbihUf0wwM/hqdefault.jpg

Same gun same capability but I guess one looks scarier to some people.What's the difference and what should we call them all?

[Will Hunting]

:lol gun nuts love turning these arguments into a gun trivia dick measuring contest as some weird ad hominem argument.

”You don’t know the difference between a silencer and suppressor, therefore your opinion means NOTHING”

[SnakeBoy]

But everyone knows what they're talking about. Not that big a deal tbh.


Every gun owner knows they are talking about fiction they got from hollywood. If the goal is to persuade gun owners to their position they should try not to sound ignorant.



What's the difference and what should we call them all?

There is no difference. Just call them what they are semi automatic weapons with high capacity magazines or make up a term that means exactly that, perhaps high capacity firearm. Then reduce the focus to the magazine capacity, which is what matters, and maybe something will get passed. Focusing on semi automatic like spurraider wants is just telling a whole bunch of hunters, ranchers, farmers that we gonna take your guns too.

We also really need to focus on the root cause of these mass shootings and it isn't mental health. There have always been crazy loser white boys and there always will be, not much you can do about it. Problem is they just don't have the work ethic of previous generations so they go for the quick fix of a mass shooting. Back in my day, loser white boys were just as crazy but they put in the time, effort, and planning to become successful serial killers. You just don't see that kind of dedication & effort these days.

[Thread]

:lol gun nuts love turning these arguments into a gun trivia dick measuring contest as some weird ad hominem argument.

”You don’t know the difference between a silencer and suppressor, therefore your opinion means NOTHING”

Your side taught our side how to (ad hominem)...you just don't like taking it, only dishing it. We learned all our shit from your side during the decades of Bush/Clinton/Hussein.
We were (((supposed))) to be able to dish it, yes, during the Bush 1&2 years, but, it turns out they were both, father&son in bed with Clinton/Hussein/Media the whole fuckin' time & we missed out on that 12 years to fuck ya's good & proper.

Damn ya's!!!

[spurraider21]

Every gun owner knows they are talking about fiction they got from hollywood. If the goal is to persuade gun owners to their position they should try not to sound ignorant.



There is no difference. Just call them what they are semi automatic weapons with high capacity magazines or make up a term that means exactly that, perhaps high capacity firearm. Then reduce the focus to the magazine capacity, which is what matters, and maybe something will get passed. Focusing on semi automatic like spurraider wants is just telling a whole bunch of hunters, ranchers, farmers that we gonna take your guns too.

We also really need to focus on the root cause of these mass shootings and it isn't mental health. There have always been crazy loser white boys and there always will be, not much you can do about it. Problem is they just don't have the work ethic of previous generations so they go for the quick fix of a mass shooting. Back in my day, loser white boys were just as crazy but they put in the time, effort, and planning to become successful serial killers. You just don't see that kind of dedication & effort these days.
ok.

how about assault weapon

[DMC]

Philo comes in again with a strawman, takes a few statements out of context and then abandons the conversation.

:lol

It's a recycled shtick that needs to be retired already. There are only like 6 people here using it.

[spurraider21]

DMC looking to discuss anything, ANYTHING but the substantive subject matter

:lol

It's a recycled shtick that needs to be retired already.

....

and there's no strawman. the guy argues for the exact position in the same posts wherein he denies holding that position. he claims he doesnt think bans would be futile, but fully believes that everybody who wants a gun will illegally get one anyway.

[DMC]

DMC looking to discuss anything, ANYTHING but the substantive subject matter

:lol

It's a recycled shtick that needs to be retired already.

....

and there's no strawman. the guy argues for the exact position in the same posts wherein he denies holding that position. he claims he doesnt think bans would be futile, but fully believes that everybody who wants a gun will illegally get one anyway.

It's like saying locking your doors will not stop someone from getting into your house if they really want to. Common sense people know what he's saying. People looking for a narrative to grow a rebuttal to a strawman will see that as an opportunity to do just that. That's you in a nutshell, Philo, you 2 cent lawyer fuck :lol

[spurraider21]

It's like saying locking your doors will not stop someone from getting into your house if they really want to. Common sense people know what he's saying. People looking for a narrative to grow a rebuttal to a strawman will see that as an opportunity to do just that. That's you in a nutshell, Philo, you 2 cent lawyer fuck :lol
so why do people lock their doors? to stop someone from getting into your house who doesn't really want to?

[DMC]

so why do people lock their doors? to stop someone from getting into your house who doesn't really want to?

Keeping honest people honest. Otherwise your bank would have a master lock on the vault instead of that behemoth fucking thing.

Homes get broken into all the time, windows break easily. You lock your door so people don't just walk in unannounced, especially inlaws.

If liquor is outlawed, honest people won't risk it to partake because they are honest, but the US is run by people who capitalized on the scarcity of alcohol during prohibition. There's a reason it was repealed.

[spurraider21]

Keeping honest people honest. Otherwise your bank would have a master lock on the vault instead of that behemoth fucking thing.

Homes get broken into all the time, windows break easily. You lock your door so people don't just walk in unannounced, especially inlaws.

If liquor is outlawed, honest people won't risk it to partake because they are honest, but the US is run by people who capitalized on the scarcity of alcohol during prohibition. There's a reason it was repealed.
do you lock your doors when you leave your home with the intention of preventing inlaws from walking in unannounced? nobody is claiming that deterrents/laws are 100% effective, and criminals will always exist. but they are still an effective means of curtailing the targeted behavior. prohibition led to a marked decrease in alcohol consumption. prohibition led to all sorts of issues including the rise of organized crime. that's been acknowledged and discussed in this thread. i'm also not concerned that in the modern day, that problem would be duplicated.

the comparison is also not great. alcohol is recreational and a routine/repeat purchase. people may want to drink daily. people aren't going to buy guns at the same right they buy drinks. limiting alcohol consumption figures to be much more difficult than limiting gun sales.

prohibition wasn't unpopular because it was ineffective with respect to decreasing alcohol consumption

[Blake]

so why do people lock their doors?


Keeping honest people honest.

DMC painted himself into a corner so it was either walk back across the paint or come up with a ridiculous answer.

[CosmicCowboy]

Murder is already pretty damn illegal.

[spurraider21]

Murder is already pretty damn illegal.
what good does it do? murderers are going to murder anyway

[CosmicCowboy]

what good does it do? murderers are going to murder anyway

Sadly true. There really is nothing we can do to stop it. Humans have been killing each other since they were using rocks and sticks.

[spurraider21]

Sadly true. There really is nothing we can do to stop it.
yup. repeal all laws. there's no point in wasting money enforcing them.

[Blake]

Sadly true. There really is nothing we can do to stop it. Humans have been killing each other since they were using rocks and sticks.

And they could just use minivans instead of guns

[Blake]

yup. repeal all laws. there's no point in wasting money enforcing them.

Because honest people be honest

[DMC]

yup. repeal all laws. there's no point in wasting money enforcing them.

Enter strawman

[DMC]

Because honest people be honest
And cucky people be cucky

[SnakeBoy]

ok.

how about assault weapon

ok fine by me if you insist on sticking to the same approach.

How about stop whining that these laws you want never have enough support to get passed then.

[spurraider21]

ok fine by me if you insist on sticking to the same approach.

How about stop whining that these laws you want never have enough support to get passed then.
you could say that about a lot of pieces of legislation that were eventually passed or proposed constitutional amendments that were adopted and ratified after years of growing support. thats just lazy bullshit

also... :lmao

- hey dont call them assault weapons!

- ok what should we call them?

- make up a term that means what you're talking about

- ok how about assault weapons?

- fine

[KenMcCoy]

TX gun laws are way too strict; the legal age to conceal carry should be lowered to 16 since that's the same age that kids can operate other equipment that can kill people.

[SnakeBoy]

you could say that about a lot of pieces of legislation that were eventually passed or proposed constitutional amendments that were adopted and ratified after years of growing support. thats just lazy bullshit

also... :lmao

- hey dont call them assault weapons!

- ok what should we call them?

- make up a term that means what you're talking about

- ok how about assault weapons?

- fine

lol Complain about having an adult conversation on gun control. Then misrepresent other positions in an effort to defend your rock solid hunting rifle buyback program.

[spurraider21]

lol Complain about having an adult conversation on gun control. Then misrepresent other positions in an effort to defend your rock solid hunting rifle buyback program.
where am i complaining about an adult conversation on gun control?

the herpaderp semantics argument of "WHAT IS AN ASSAULT WEAPON" is not a grownup discussion. these arguments that try to bog everything down into semantics are just meant to derail the actual conversation

im not misrepresenting positions, chucho was just speaking out of both sides of his mouth. on one hand he argues that people will illegally get guns anyway, and that we will have big time black markets like we did during prohibition (implying that a ban would be futile) while repeatedly assuring us that he wasn't saying bans would be futile. if somebody is going to take the position that a law is not going to help because "criminals gonna criminal" then by logical extension no laws are serving any purpose. because anybody that would have done those bad acts will still do them anyway

and i didnt call for a "hunting rilfe buyback program." you can have a bolt action hunting rifle, no problem. i said semi auto rifles.

[Blake]

And cucky people be cucky

DMC going into DMC mode

[koriwhat]

Yo bitchassBlaKKKe why are you stalking me? Lol cuckBlaKKKeLogic

[KenMcCoy]

and i didnt call for a "hunting rilfe buyback program." you can have a bolt action hunting rifle, no problem. i said semi auto rifles.

It only takes $175 and two minutes to convert an AR from semi-auto to bolt action and back again. I'm pretty sure any mandatory program wouldn't find many semi-auto rifles to buyback. A lot of AR owners would convert their rifles and "throw away" the charging handle and bolt carrier group.

www.kalikey.com

[Blake]

Yo bitchassBlaKKKe why are you stalking me? Lol cuckBlaKKKeLogic

Oh look who followed me into this thread to talk about me #stalker

[koriwhat]

Oh look who followed me into this thread to talk about me #stalker

funny because i was literally post #2... :tu #stalker #dumbmeaninglesshashtag

you truly aren't that bright.

[spurraider21]

It only takes $175 and two minutes to convert an AR from semi-auto to bolt action and back again. I'm pretty sure any mandatory program wouldn't find many semi-auto rifles to buyback. A lot of AR owners would convert their rifles and "throw away" the charging handle and bolt carrier group.

www.kalikey.com (http://www.kalikey.com)
a) i already corrected myself and said it wouldnt be mandatory
b) i'm sure there will be people who break the law. i'm also sure that many will be good law abiding citizens and not add illegal modifications to their weapons

[SnakeBoy]

and i didnt call for a "hunting rilfe buyback program." you can have a bolt action hunting rifle, no problem. i said semi auto rifles.

Yeah you want to buyback semi auto hunting rifles

[SnakeBoy]

Those pesky semantics

[Blake]

funny because i was literally post #2... :tu #stalker #dumbmeaninglesshashtag

you truly aren't that bright.

I hadn't thought of or talked about you at all in this thread.

I make post #83 and literally four minutes later you pop in to specifically go right after me and not about anything I actually said about the topic.

That's stalker stuff, stalker.

[boutons_deux]

nutcase Megan McCain actually made a reasonable point on The View.

It's too late to ban assault weapons, high capacity magazines because so many are already.

That's actually true for ALL 300M+ guns in USA.

I think I saw that Walmart will sell only specific ammo and no more handguns.

[spurraider21]

Yeah you want to buyback semi auto hunting rifles


Those pesky semantics
semi auto rifles. yes that may include some hunting rifles. presumably not all of them, as hunting rifles may also be of the bolt action variety.

[Blake]

Muh semi auto hunting rifle.

For muh home protection!

[CosmicCowboy]

so do you anti-gunners want to ban semi-auto shotguns too? There are a shitload of them out there.

[CosmicCowboy]

Muh semi auto hunting rifle.

For muh home protection!

Blake just needs Sancho repellent for home protection.

[koriwhat]

I hadn't thought of or talked about you at all in this thread.

I make post #83 and literally four minutes later you pop in to specifically go right after me and not about anything I actually said about the topic.

That's stalker stuff, stalker.

you think you're so important but you forget that even your most intimate of relationships thought otherwise of you too.

i came in here and then saw you here and thought, "why not?"

an eye for an eye amirite ya faggot? now make some more excuses and use some more coping mechanisms while you pat yourself on the back bitchBoyBlaKKKe.

[Blake]

Sure, stalker

[koriwhat]

so do you anti-gunners want to ban semi-auto shotguns too? There are a shitload of them out there.

they're anti-guns because they're pussies and probably have never shot a gun before. i doubt i'm wrong.

[koriwhat]

Sure, stalker

you're the OG stalker around these parts... you're literally trying to use alinsky tactics against me, "accuse others of what you're doing and deny you're doing it at the same time."

[SnakeBoy]

semi auto rifles. yes that may include some hunting rifles. presumably not all of them, as hunting rifles may also be of the bolt action variety.

So what is your criteria for which semi auto rifles would be included. Hint: it's in the picture of the 2 mini 14 "ranch" rifles (these are not AR's) I already posted. Here it is again...

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ytbihUf0wwM/hqdefault.jpg

[Pavlov]

:lol you're still stalling on this?

[SnakeBoy]

semi auto rifles. yes that may include some hunting rifles. presumably not all of them, as hunting rifles may also be of the bolt action variety.

Is this weapon of war on your list of weapons to be removed from the population?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N4usbYsFq8

[spurraider21]

Is this weapon of war on your list of weapons to be removed from the population?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N4usbYsFq8
is it a semi automatic rifle?

[SnakeBoy]

is it a semi automatic rifle?

Why yes it is. Good job.

[Pavlov]

THE STALLING

[SnakeBoy]

:lol you're still stalling on this?

Stalling on what? I given my views, now I'm asking him about his well thought out policy proposal.

[spurraider21]

Why yes it is. Good job.
then yes

[SnakeBoy]

then yes

So you would prefer mass shooters have any bolt action rifle than that 10/22?

[SnakeBoy]

THE WILLFUL IGNORANCE

[Chris]

Since 1950, nearly 99% of all mass public shootings happened in gun-free zones.

[spurraider21]

So you would prefer mass shooters have any bolt action rifle than that 10/22?


THE WILLFUL IGNORANCE
any time you have a law that draws a line in the sand, there will be some funky results. age requirements for driving are arbitrary... in CA you have to be 16 to get a drivers license. its possible that when i was 16.5, i was less mature and fit to be driving than my next door neighbor who was 15.5 years old. but the law draws a line in the sand.

same with any legislation on guns. i'm ok with focus being on guns that can do the most amount of damage in as little time as possible. if that includes a dinky 10/22 instead of a more powerful bolt action, then so be it. if it turns out that we start seeing absurd amounts of mass shootings where people go into nightclubs and movie theaters with bolt action rifles and are able to take out 25+ people at a time, then perhaps we reconsider the approach then.

having laws against a class of weapon like "semi automatic rifles" is probably going to be a lot more efficient/effective than codifying and identifying every single model and every single variant of every gun that might qualify under that broader definition. some guns that you dont feel are deserving may get swept in. i think the interest in public safety is more important than the interest of some shmuck wanting to go buy that particular model of gun

[Pavlov]

Stalling on what? I given my views, now I'm asking him about his well thought out policy proposal.Stalling on muh definitions.

He gave them to you.

What's your policy proposal again?

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/prageru/status/1168935849444159488?s=20

[Blake]

Since 1950, nearly 99% of all mass public shootings happened in gun-free zones.

Do you have a point or is this just a drive by factoid from an old Chuck Woolery tweet?

[Pavlov]

https://twitter.com/prageru/status/1168935849444159488?s=20Guns have changed.

:lmao "university"

[Blake]

Is this weapon of war on your list of weapons to be removed from the population?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N4usbYsFq8

I'd totally not feel threatened with that guy carrying that into a Walmart for his own protection as is his second Amendment right

[spurraider21]

guy walks into your house carrying that

your first response: hey there, fellow patriot!

[Pavlov]

All those lights and he's wearing sunglasses....


Dude's got an oath to keep!

[Blake]

Do you have a point or is this just a drive by factoid from an old Chuck Woolery tweet?

Oh Prager U. Should have known

[DMC]

any time you have a law that draws a line in the sand, there will be some funky results. age requirements for driving are arbitrary... in CA you have to be 16 to get a drivers license. its possible that when i was 16.5, i was less mature and fit to be driving than my next door neighbor who was 15.5 years old. but the law draws a line in the sand.

same with any legislation on guns. i'm ok with focus being on guns that can do the most amount of damage in as little time as possible. if that includes a dinky 10/22 instead of a more powerful bolt action, then so be it. if it turns out that we start seeing absurd amounts of mass shootings where people go into nightclubs and movie theaters with bolt action rifles and are able to take out 25+ people at a time, then perhaps we reconsider the approach then.

having laws against a class of weapon like "semi automatic rifles" is probably going to be a lot more efficient/effective than codifying and identifying every single model and every single variant of every gun that might qualify under that broader definition. some guns that you dont feel are deserving may get swept in. i think the interest in public safety is more important than the interest of some shmuck wanting to go buy that particular model of gun

As long as you consider gun owners schmucks, you'll be on the losing side. Trust me on this.

[Blake]

guy walks into your house carrying that

your first response: hey there, fellow patriot!

And he walks right in because your door is naturally lock free.

[DMC]

guy walks into your house carrying that

your first response: hey there, fellow patriot!

If your door was locked there's no possible way he gets in.

[SnakeBoy]

Stalling on muh definitions.

He gave them to you.


Nope. He want to get rid of semi automatic weapons but not all of them. He won't give his criteria for which ones.



What's your policy proposal again?

Haven't made one. I've said I think you should be making the case to change or eliminate the 2nd amendment since it's original intent no longer applies. And I've said that anti gunners could make a more cogent argument if they knew a bit more about guns. Which would only require spending a short time on youtube watching some videos.

THE WILLFUL IGNORANCE

[DMC]

I'd totally not feel threatened with that guy carrying that into a Walmart for his own protection as is his second Amendment right

What if he had his cock out and was standing naked in your bedroom with your wife still leaking from the vag? Would you feel threatened then and if so, would it cause you to become aroused?

[Pavlov]

Nope. He want to get rid of semi automatic weapons but not all of them. He won't give his criteria for which ones.THE STALLING



Haven't made one. I've said I think you should be making the case to change or eliminate the 2nd amendment since it's original intent no longer applies. And I've said that anti gunners could make a more cogent argument if they knew a bit more about guns. Which would only require spending a short time on youtube watching some videos.Or you could, you know, just say what you think people should know.

But you never will. You don't want any discussion.

[Pavlov]

As long as you consider gun owners schmucks, you'll be on the losing side. Trust me on this.What about the rest of it?

[KenMcCoy]

b) i'm sure there will be people who break the law. i'm also sure that many will be good law abiding citizens and not murder innocent people with guns, knives, blunt objects, cars, etc.

FIFY

[SnakeBoy]

I'd totally not feel threatened with that guy carrying that into a Walmart for his own protection as is his second Amendment right

What about a guy carrying this into walmart

https://www.sportsmansoutdoorsuperstore.com/prodimages/10122-DEFAULT-l.jpg

Less threatening than the 10/22?

[DMC]

^^Chumpy is on here 24 hours a day. I posted this morning, he responded in seconds. I posted at noon, he responded again in seconds. Now he's still going.

Want to stop mass shootings, have the shooter correspond with Chumpy. He'll be to busy "yes I am" "No you're not" "Yes I am" "prove it" "no you prove it" for days on end to do anything.

[spurraider21]

As long as you consider gun owners schmucks, you'll be on the losing side. Trust me on this.
i dont consider gun owners schmucks.

somebody who is kicking and screaming about regulation because he really wants to buy that bedazzled piece of shit is a shmuck

[SnakeBoy]

Or you could, you know, just say what you think people should know.

But you never will. You don't want any discussion.

I've said it repeatedly. You just quoted me saying it again.

THE WILLFUL IGNORANCE

[Pavlov]

^^Chumpy is on here 24 hours a day. I posted this morning, he responded in seconds. I posted at noon, he responded again in seconds. Now he's still going.

Want to stop mass shootings, have the shooter correspond with Chumpy. He'll be to busy "yes I am" "No you're not" "Yes I am" "prove it" "no you prove it" for days on end to do anything.DMC avoiding discussion at all costs.


lol tough guy

[DMC]

i dont consider gun owners schmucks.

somebody who is kicking and screaming about regulation because he really wants to buy that bedazzled piece of shit is a shmuck

Hyperbole also won't get you a in.

[spurraider21]

FIFY
no, not really

[DMC]

DMC avoiding discussion at all costs.


lol tough guy

10 seconds it too Chumpy to respond

:lol

Thuglife

[spurraider21]

Hyperbole also won't get you a in.
nothing will get you engaged in a substantive discussion

[Pavlov]

I've said it repeatedly. You just quoted me saying it again.
You said muh youtubes

That's not saying what people should know.

[KenMcCoy]

What about a guy carrying this into walmart

https://www.sportsmansoutdoorsuperstore.com/prodimages/10122-DEFAULT-l.jpg

Less threatening than the 10/22?

It doesn't LOOK as scary so it's OK. :blah

[Pavlov]

nothing will get you engaged in a substantive discussion:lol he's so pissed at you for calling his bluff

[DMC]

nothing will get you engaged in a substantive discussion

I gave you a fair chance and you wanted to point me to a link instead of talking, and play "100 Narrative Building Questions".

If you were interested in discussion you'd avoid the hyperbole and strawman responses.

[Pavlov]

What about a guy carrying this into walmart

https://www.sportsmansoutdoorsuperstore.com/prodimages/10122-DEFAULT-l.jpg

Less threatening than the 10/22?evergreen
:cry I'm going to bog down the thread with pictures and articles about technical terms

[SnakeBoy]

i dont consider gun owners schmucks.

somebody who is kicking and screaming about regulation because he really wants to buy that bedazzled piece of shit is a shmuck

Still waiting on your criteria for which semi automatics are ok and which aren't. You can just say it's based on your feelings when you see the gun. It's okay.

[Pavlov]

I gave you a fair chance :rollin

[DMC]

:lol he's so pissed at you for calling his bluff

I'd bet you even think in a lisp.

[Blake]

What if he had his cock out and was standing naked in your bedroom with your wife still leaking from the vag? Would you feel threatened then and if so, would it cause you to become aroused?

DMC porn mode activated

[Pavlov]

I'd bet you even think in a lisp.And what do you mean by that, DMC?

You shut the fuck up about it the last time I asked.

:lol tough guy

[DMC]

evergreen

Evergreen

[spurraider21]

I gave you a fair chance and you wanted to point me to a link instead of talking, and play "100 Narrative Building Questions".

If you were interested in discussion you'd avoid the hyperbole and strawman responses.
you asked what my position was and instead of retyping what i had recently typed i linked you to the post.

i asked if you are a proponent of repealing 2A and you've squirmed about instead of committing to an answer with shit like "it should be proposed and we'll see how courts react to it."

i asked if you want to repeal 2A and your response was that you, individually, cannot repeal 2A. you're not even feigning legitimate discussion

[DMC]

DMC porn mode activated

Lol you see wifey rape as porn

[Pavlov]

DMC porn mode activated:lol 21 really got to him

Dude's just flailing now.

[DMC]

you asked what my position was and instead of retyping what i had recently typed i linked you to the post.

i asked if you are a proponent of repealing 2A and you've squirmed about instead of committing to an answer with shit like "it should be proposed and we'll see how courts react to it."

i asked if you want to repeal 2A and your response was that you, individually, cannot repeal 2A. you're not even feigning legitimate discussion

You're wrong and misleading the forum about what we said. You misspoke again.

[SnakeBoy]

evergreen

10/22 vs 30-30

:cry it's so technical

:lol

[spurraider21]

Still waiting on your criteria for which semi automatics are ok and which aren't. You can just say it's based on your feelings when you see the gun. It's okay.
i never said it was based on what looked scary. i was pretty clear that i wanted the legislation to cover all semi automatic rifles.

you then posted a youtube and said "EVEN THIS ONE??!?!??"

my response was simple. is it a semi automatic rifle? yes? then it would be subject to that legislation. period.

[Pavlov]

10/22 vs 30-30

:cry it's so technical

:lolYou really don't want to talk about this.

:lol

[Pavlov]

i never said it was based on what looked scary. i was pretty clear that i wanted the legislation to cover all semi automatic rifles.

you then posted a youtube and said "EVEN THIS ONE??!?!??"

my response was simple. is it a semi automatic rifle? yes? then it would be subject to that legislation. period.:cry it's not technical enough

[spurraider21]

You're wrong and misleading the forum about what we said. You misspoke again.
nope.

:cry i cannot personally amend the BOR :cry

signed,
guy pretending to want legitimate discourse

:lmao

[DMC]

i never said it was based on what looked scary. i was pretty clear that i wanted the legislation to cover all semi automatic rifles.

you then posted a youtube and said "EVEN THIS ONE??!?!??"

my response was simple. is it a semi automatic rifle? yes? then it would be subject to that legislation. period.

The problem is that your terminology is wrong.

You can ban semiauto receivers. They don't need to be rifles. Rifling is just a barrel type.

Your intent is to outlaw long guns that have receivers that can auto load after each pull of the trigger. You call that a semi auto rifle but "gun nuts" who know law is all about terminology will find ways to have a rifle that auto loads after each pull of the trigger while still meeting the requirements of the law that was penned by people like you who don't know the difference. This is where placebo legislation comes from. You'd need to swing a gun nut to your side to make it happen, and hope he's a lawyer.

[DMC]

nope.

:cry i cannot personally amend the BOR :cry

signed,
guy pretending to want legitimate discourse

:lmao

Link it. Don't edit or call "misspoke". Just link it.

[spurraider21]

The problem is that your terminology is wrong.

You can ban semiauto receivers. They don't need to be rifles. Rifling is just a barrel type.

Your intent is to outlaw long guns that have receivers that can auto load after each pull of the trigger. You call that a semi auto rifle but "gun nuts" who know law is all about terminology will find ways to have a rifle that auto loads after each pull of the trigger while still meeting the requirements of the law that was penned by people like you who don't know the difference. This is where placebo legislation comes from. You'd need to swing a gun nut to your side to make it happen, and hope he's a lawyer.
semi automatic rifle is the wrong term? oh ok

just another example of bogging this all down into technical jargon and semantics. everybody here perfectly understands what i'm referring to with semi automatic rifle. that should be good enough for the discussion. i'm sure a bill going through congress would include more language than a spurstalk post

[Pavlov]

The problem is that your terminology is wrong.

You can ban semiauto receivers. They don't need to be rifles. Rifling is just a barrel type.

Your intent is to outlaw long guns that have receivers that can auto load after each pull of the trigger. You call that a semi auto rifle but "gun nuts" who know law is all about terminology will find ways to have a rifle that auto loads after each pull of the trigger while still meeting the requirements of the law that was penned by people like you who don't know the difference. This is where placebo legislation comes from. You'd need to swing a gun nut to your side to make it happen, and hope he's a lawyer.So the goalpost has been moved to "You must show us the full text of the finished bill that will be presented to Congress."

:lol

[spurraider21]

Link it. Don't edit or call "misspoke". Just link it.
a minute ago you were whining about me linking a post instead of spelling it out. you now demand that i link a post

in any event, here it comes. here is you saying "i cannot personally amend the BOR"


I cannot personally amend the BoR.

You didn't respond.

your incoming response "you didnt put the proper capitalizations and punctuation. misleading philo"

[Pavlov]

It doesn't matter if he can't personally amend the BoR. He has to post the exact language that will be used to amend the BoR or his argument is automatically void.

[Blake]

What about a guy carrying this into walmart

https://www.sportsmansoutdoorsuperstore.com/prodimages/10122-DEFAULT-l.jpg

Less threatening than the 10/22?

I bet a firefighter would pull his gun on you and wait for the police to arrive.

[Blake]

Lol you see wifey rape as porn

You were actually visualizing rape in that "leaky vag/exposed cock" porn post?

Wtf is wrong with you

[SnakeBoy]

You really don't want to talk about this.

:lol

If you want to dazzle me with your knowledge of guns have at it. I own a few but I'm no expert. Make them illegal and I'll hand them over, don't have much use for them. Or don't change the laws at all, doesn't really matter to me.

Just saying, make a cogent proposal if you're going to make one.

[DMC]

a minute ago you were whining about me linking a post instead of spelling it out. you now demand that i link a post

in any event, here it comes. here is you saying "i cannot personally amend the BOR"



your incoming response "you didnt put the proper capitalizations and punctuation. misleading philo"

So link it. Still waiting.

[DMC]

If you want to dazzle me with your knowledge of guns have at it. I own a few but I'm no expert. Make them illegal and I'll hand them over, don't have much use for them. Or don't change the laws at all, doesn't really matter to me.

Just saying, make a cogent proposal if you're going to make one.

He's not going to. He's going to nay say you hoping you'll stay up all night with him.

[DMC]

So link it. Still waiting.

Here

I'll do it for you...


so you're a proponent of repealing 2A?


Are you here to discuss it or just snatch a crumb or two?

quid pro quo

I think it should be proposed. I'd like to see how the court responds to it. Could the 3 party system be a deterrent to the kind of change we really need?

You?

[Pavlov]

If you want to dazzle me with your knowledge of guns have at it. I own a few but I'm no expert. Make them illegal and I'll hand them over, don't have much use for them. Or don't change the laws at all, doesn't really matter to me.

Just saying, make a cogent proposal if you're going to make one.
So the goalpost has been moved to "You must show us the full text of the finished bill that will be presented to Congress."

:lol

[Pavlov]

He's not going to. He's going to nay say you hoping you'll stay up all night with him.:lol you wanted to know how the court would respond to an amendment to the Constitution.

They would say it's constitutional.

[SnakeBoy]

He's not going to. He's going to nay say you hoping you'll stay up all night with him.

I know. We did that last night. Fucking dogs wouldn't let me sleep.

[DMC]

semi automatic rifle is the wrong term? oh ok

just another example of bogging this all down into technical jargon and semantics. everybody here perfectly understands what i'm referring to with semi automatic rifle. that should be good enough for the discussion. i'm sure a bill going through congress would include more language than a spurstalk post

The term "semi-auto" is correct, but restricting it to "rifles" is placebo legislation because the difference between a rifle and handgun diminish based on the platform. You can drop an H&K 45 into a frame and have the equivalent of an urban assault weapon. You still have the semi-auto movement with a generic frame, not classified by the ATF as a short barrel rifle so it wouldn't be covered by your "semiauto rifle" ban. You have to legislate the intent, not the generic term when you don't understand the terminology.

You can discuss gun control without knowing shit about guns, but you are discussing gun laws.

[DMC]

you asked what my position was and instead of retyping what i had recently typed i linked you to the post.

i asked if you are a proponent of repealing 2A and you've squirmed about instead of committing to an answer with shit like "it should be proposed and we'll see how courts react to it."

i asked if you want to repeal 2A and your response was that you, individually, cannot repeal 2A. you're not even feigning legitimate discussion


a minute ago you were whining about me linking a post instead of spelling it out. you now demand that i link a post

in any event, here it comes. here is you saying "i cannot personally amend the BOR"



your incoming response "you didnt put the proper capitalizations and punctuation. misleading philo"
:lol

[Pavlov]

The term "semi-auto" is correct, but restricting it to "rifles" is placebo legislation because the difference between a rifle and handgun diminish based on the platform. You can drop an H&K 45 into a frame and have the equivalent of an urban assault weapon. You still have the semi-auto movement with a generic frame, not classified by the ATF as a short barrel rifle so it wouldn't be covered by your "semiauto rifle" ban. You have to legislate the intent, not the generic term when you don't understand the terminology.Great.

Include those things you listed.

Where's the goalpost moving now?

[DMC]

you asked what my position was and instead of retyping what i had recently typed i linked you to the post.

i asked if you are a proponent of repealing 2A and you've squirmed about instead of committing to an answer with shit like "it should be proposed and we'll see how courts react to it."

i asked if you want to repeal 2A and your response was that you, individually, cannot repeal 2A. you're not even feigning legitimate discussion


You're wrong and misleading the forum about what we said. You misspoke again.


nope.

:cry i cannot personally amend the BOR :cry

signed,
guy pretending to want legitimate discourse

:lmao

https://i.imgur.com/d2Eml0D.jpg

Go ahead Philo, call semantics. You can use whatever comment you like and cherry pick any response to mislead folks into thinking you have a case. You don't. I didn't even attend law school.

[DMC]

Great.

Include those things you listed.

Where's the goalpost moving now?

Why are you telling me that? Tell your congressman.

[Blake]

Why are you telling me that? Tell your congressman.

Smh poor DMC is having difficulty keeping up.

[Pavlov]

Why are you telling me that? Tell your congressman.

That's where you're moving the goalpost.

:lol

[Spurminator]

"I can't personally change the laws" is a pretty creative escape maneuver from an online discussion, particularly coming from someone who has often tried to assign personal responsibility to board liberals for the DNC's choice of Presidential candidate and shame for backing the loser.

[DMC]

"I can't personally change the laws" is a pretty creative escape maneuver from an online discussion, particularly coming from someone who has often tried to assign personal responsibility to board liberals for the DNC's choice of Presidential candidate and shame for backing the loser.
I already gave my response and was asking for his, at which point he continued to ask for mine, as if he was trying to pin me down.

Creating a sock puppet to go to bat for you because you lack the balls to do it yourself is even more creative.

Don't act like you weren't a Hillary supporter. Don't make me do it. Just don't.

[DMC]

Smh poor DMC is having difficulty keeping up.


That's where you're moving the goalpost.

:lol

"Just do whatever you need to do" -Pavlov

You're a great statesman, Chumpy. Your dog Blake approves.

[Pavlov]

"Just do whatever you need to do" -Pavlov

You're a great statesman, Chumpy. Your dog Blake approves. Sorry I ruined your stalling tactic.

Again.

:lol

[DMC]

Sorry I ruined your stalling tactic.

Again.

:lol

:lol literally 3rd post in the thread I laid it out with bullet points


"stalling tactic" you late to the party motherfucker :lmao

[Blake]

:lol literally 3rd post in the thread I laid it out with bullet points


"stalling tactic" you late to the party motherfucker :lmao

Post #3 is the standard DMC false dilemma

[CosmicCowboy]

You were actually visualizing rape in that "leaky vag/exposed cock" porn post?

Wtf is wrong with you

I totally read that post as voluntary on wife's part wanting to bed a real man .

[Pavlov]

:lol literally 3rd post in the thread I laid it out with bullet points


"stalling tactic" you late to the party motherfucker :lmao
:lol I called the playbook two years ago.

You're late.

[Blake]

I totally read that post as voluntary on wife's part wanting to bed a real man .

Me too but DMC actually stated his porno post was meant to imply rape.