Sport Bikes banner

41 - 52 of 52 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,419 Posts
Discussion Starter #41
I am also good with making bumpstock's illegal. I get how you feel about "AR-15s" but let me ask ... are you ok with hunting rifles? I will attach one such rifle to this post if I can figure it out. Many of these are around and are used commonly for hunting.






In this you are saying that your more of get rid of all guns kinda guy. I agree completely that if you could find a way to remove all guns from everyone in the US then it would greatly reduce the number of gun deaths. It would have to reduce the number of murders per year but probably not as much as one might think and it probably wouldn't do much to suicide numbers. I don't think it is something that will ever happen peacefully to say the least. I could be wrong though. Personally any hunting I do could be done with a bow. The picture of that rifle I was talking about is below.
Of course I'm okay with hunting rifles. Criminy, I own a very valuable deer rifle of my own, although I've only used it a half dozen times in the last 50 years. But it has great value and I will pass it along to my oldest son. (it holds 6 rounds, max, and is a bolt action rifle).

Yes it can be used in any manner of ways, including trying to murder schoolkids but at least you can't be mow them down like you can with an assault rifle. It's important to remember that most of these creeps acquire their assault rifles completely legally.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,961 Posts
Personally I like a bolt action hunting rifle because it is hard to beat the accuracy of it. Leaver action do a good job as well. I also rather open sights but have used scopes before. Some people these days swear by the semi-automatic hunting rifle (no bump stock) saying it is just as accurate as the bolt action and instead of dropping 1 deer out of a group of 5 or 6 they say they can drop 2 or 3 out that same group (using 2 or 3 shots). I haven't put my hands on one of the semi-automatic hunting rifles but I remember how accurate I was with my M16 in the Marines so its reasonable to think that they are accurate as well.

Bump stocks serve no purpose at all IMHO and take away accuracy of shots. I really think the most logical first step is some type of license to purchase a gun and even a registration of firearms as well as allowing all non personal information to be tracked. That would allow us to have good solid studies on shootings and such. Also holding owners responsible when they are negligent. A ban simply wont work.

I was reading today that some town near Chicago banned assault weapons in that town with a $1000 fine for every day a person has one of those banned weapons in that town. My question is how do they plan to enforce that? Do they expect anyone owning one of the banned weapons to turn it in or move? Do they think people will come forward and say "yea I have had that gun for the last 2 weeks so here is your $14000."? How do they really see this working out? Not one person in my neighborhood knows what I do or don't have in my house and even if there was some type of registration already then I would simply say that I have it stored in my friends house a town over or whatever.
Hauling out one decent sized deer is a PITA if you are deep enough into steep enough country. Two or three would be absurd, unless you were fairly close to a road. I'm thinking in practical terms here. Likewise, the meat from one deer is plenty to last a long time, let alone two or three. If you are trying to be efficient and feed a whole clan for a year, then that makes perfect sense. Otherwise, I don't see much point in anything beyond bolt action or other single shot. Then again, taking out Bambi rats doesn't bother me one bit. We need more hunters, bears, wolves, and anything else that will eat those vermin.

Sounds like we are in complete agreement regarding registration. After the Patriot Act, the government knew more about what we read than the weapons we posses. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, especially since there's not much way to track when a really dangerous person gets an arsenal or where it came from.

There are some really googly eyed ideas on the control side. That fine is one of them. Bans didn't work for drugs, bans won't work for guns now that the cat is out of the bag to the order of millions of weapons all over the nation. Making transfers and purchases slower and more cumbersome won't stop anybody from legitimately owning whatever is legal. It will make it far less likely that an individual can secretly amass enough to create local Armageddon in the basement with complete impunity. It's not going to stop gun violence. Shootings in other countries prove that. But, it might reduce shootings down to the levels that exist in other countries. That would be an improvement, and I don't see any reason not to think about how to accomplish that.
 

·
the joke is in your hand
Joined
·
8,588 Posts
please will someone show me where it says you can have any kind of gun or any amount of guns you want.

also what part of "a well regulated militia" doesn't mean the gov can't regulate guns? the way I read it it means the state governments at the time, had the right to arm it's citizens to fight against a foreign gov(not the fed gov that made the constitution, bill of rights etc) that others try to install. to me it's pretty clear they intended "arms" to be well regulated and assigned by the states to the people and gave the people the right to use them to fight when the state needed them.
there is no such thing today. so the 2nd needs to be amended to reflect current times.

i mean they're all about stifling people's first amendment and it doesn't kill people. or qualms about making term limits when they (republicans) kept getting beat at the voting booths(22nd amendment)

btw, the only reason I feel this way is I can't stand the mentality of gun owners in general. they all want to suck trumps cock like stormy daniels and reject any kind of sensible gun control measures. it's a mentality of a child taking his ball home when he can't get his way.

I love seeing the NRA and guys like hannity flipping their fucking lids about the kids marches. they care more about guns than people having health insurance. irony considering they're going to need health insurance when the next nra nut shoots them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,961 Posts
Well, it goes to the whole pro-life thing. Gotta pop out the cannon fodder so we can mow 'em down with guns and wars and stuff. Plus cut taxes. All those dead children won't have to pay back the debt when we reward the wealthy for being wealthy. Wealth is a sign of extreme virtue, of course. And, as long as we are on that, read the Old Testament for a variety of onerous passages, ignore others, and ignore most of the New Testament while calling yourself a Christian. Blowing of vast quantities of the Constitution while considering yourself devoted to its original meaning isn't much of a stretch when you already did all those other mind boggling feats of stupidity and selective thinking.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,419 Posts
Discussion Starter #45
Guns have a serial number, but to the best of my knowledge, there's no title that ties that serial number to an individual. There's no chain of custody of any kind, like there is for a motorcycle. So, not licensed or traceable in any meaningful way. Federal law doesn't do shit for some reason. There have been a number of small children shooting others around here lately. Nobody has been prosecuted. So much for the law you seem to think exists. If it does exist, then those people should have been up on federal charges. Full stop. Start making gun owners strictly liable for what happens with guns, make sure those guns can be traced to an individual owner, and life is good. It won't stop everything, but it sure will make a whole lot of people a whole lot more careful about who they sell to, how they store guns, and what happens. That would make a big difference in what happens without any need for banning anything.

You are a self-proclaimed conservative. You ought to be all over any solution that is about personal responsibility. If not, then it's all just a bunch of self-serving rhetoric that means certain people should be responsible and others get a free pass. You can't have it both ways and expect to have any credibility.
+1

"Personal responsibility" only when it's convenient.

Here's the thing: This whole issue is so friggin' tribal that the two two sides talk past each other. The best we can do is marshal our own forces (clearly a huge majority of the population) and do this the democratic way. Elect reps who are in tune with their constituencies. Get what we can and work toward a clearer, soberer attitude about guns.

At the end of the day, it's all about selling guns. The NRA, et al. are just mouthpieces for a small but well connected industry, mostly in the Northeast. They've used the standard propaganda techniques to make quasi-brownshirts of their followers. "Scare 'em often and scare 'em well.

That's that SOP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,177 Posts
In reality there isn't much to be said that hasn't been said many times over. The only way anything good will come from any of the talk about guns is if both sides of the coin accept that they need to meet in the middle to find something that will work for everyone. Not sure if it will ever happen because in most of these kind of debates the moment one side gets something they quickly grab for the next thing. Its kinda like in "Where the Red Fern Grows" when Billy kills his first raccoon. The stupid thing wont let go of what's in its hands even if its the only way to save its life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,961 Posts
Kaiser Permanente is now funding studies on gun violence. They have to pay for gunshot wounds, so they have a vested interest in reducing the incidence. Sometimes things come around in a circle. I would like to see the NRA go after Kaiser Permanente. That would be another big use for popcorn.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,239 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,177 Posts
I think its interesting that they would choose to destroy them. I understand that they cant just send them back and will have to take a loss on them but as a business decision it would seem to me that its a bad one. If I owned the company I would look for other options such as selling them in bulk to a competitor that still sells them or gun stores or whatever in order to keep the loss to a minimum and still not sell to the public. Of course I guess they might have a lot less of them than what I have in mind so not sure what kind of a hit destroying them will make to the bottom line. In any case good on them for keeping to their word.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,961 Posts
I may have mentioned this before. It's worth repeating. A friend and colleague is an avid tournament shooter. He's a person who has lots of guns, knows about guns, enjoys guns, and handles them responsibly and safely. He's also tuned into the whole ammosexual mentality. He figures that you can make a huge profit buying cheap knock-off AK-47 type guns when the GOP is in charge. The ammosexuals feel secure and empowered then. As soon as a Democrat wins an election, you hear all about "gun grabbers" and the price of AK-47s goes through the roof. The dumb buggers feel like they have to load up on guns before they are all banned. Then, when nothing happens and another right winger gets elected, they figure out that they have a whole storage locker full of crappy guns that probably don't even work very well. So, those get sold off cheap. Rinse, repeat.

Whatever Dick's Sporting Goods is doing won't hurt their bottom line much. If it did, they wouldn't do it. My take is that it's a bit of a publicity stunt and that they were probably not selling those things at much of a profit anyway. Plus, in this climate, there may be a whole lot more profit in positioning yourself as an ethical gun dealer instead of a comprehensive gun dealer.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,419 Posts
Discussion Starter #51
I think its interesting that they would choose to destroy them. I understand that they cant just send them back and will have to take a loss on them but as a business decision it would seem to me that its a bad one. If I owned the company I would look for other options such as selling them in bulk to a competitor that still sells them or gun stores or whatever in order to keep the loss to a minimum and still not sell to the public. Of course I guess they might have a lot less of them than what I have in mind so not sure what kind of a hit destroying them will make to the bottom line. In any case good on them for keeping to their word.
Are you nuts? This is the best piece of PR Dick's could possibly have created. What are we talking about here? A few assault weapons worth a few thousand bucks? Dicks has a market cap of $3.5 billion and a 10 P/E and plenty of cash on hand.

"We're staunch supporters of the Second Amendment — I'm a gun owner myself," Dick's CEO Ed Stack said on "Good Morning America" at the time. "We don't want to be a part of this story, and we have eliminated these guns permanently."
 
41 - 52 of 52 Posts
Top