Florida School Shooting

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

38 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

I’m guessing that many non gun owners aren’t really interested in finding out what it’s all about . And that’s fine as long as they don’t go spouting half truths and wrong information.

Trouble is, many choose to do just that.

 

The NRA has become much more political than in it’s beginnings.  Primarily because there exists a group of politicians who would have done much more to take guns away in the recent past had the NRA not stepped up.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

Trouble is, many choose to do just that.

 

The NRA has become much more political than in it’s beginnings.  Primarily because there exists a group of politicians who would have done much more to take guns away in the recent past had the NRA not stepped up.

I still don’t see how the government can take guns away without amending the Constitution. And for all the politicians who talk about gun bans, etc, I’m still waiting to see if any of them will put their money where their mouth is and publicly say so and use that for their campaign. I’m betting none of them would put their neck on the line and do so. I’d have a lot more respect for them even though I disagee with that stance if they would stand up for what they supposedly believe in. 

[Boiler 45,525]

6 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

I still don’t see how the government can take guns away without amending the Constitution. And for all the politicians who talk about gun bans, etc, I’m still waiting to see if any of them will put their money where their mouth is and publicly say so and use that for their campaign. I’m betting none of them would put their neck on the line and do so. I’d have a lot more respect for them even though I disagee with that stance if they would stand up for what they supposedly believe in. 

There are some that do, but they are on rotten boroughs.

 

I agree that anybody in a vaguely competitive  area may mouth a few platitudes to their MDLers but not a lot more.

 

Obviously the first thing  would expect to see is leading by example, make their offices, campaigns a gun free zone.

[TBoneTX 45,308]

16 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

when murder occurs, the chance that a firearm is involved is high. The question being asked is is there ways to prevent or diminish that. 

Ban inner cities!  All of them!  Now!

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

6 hours ago, spookyturtle said:

I still don’t see how the government can take guns away without amending the Constitution. And for all the politicians who talk about gun bans, etc, I’m still waiting to see if any of them will put their money where their mouth is and publicly say so and use that for their campaign. I’m betting none of them would put their neck on the line and do so. I’d have a lot more respect for them even though I disagee with that stance if they would stand up for what they supposedly believe in. 

Well, I predict we will see some changes before we die. Bear in mind we are dealing with people who are willing to defy nature with more than 2 genders, love tide pods, have no issues with men in a women's bathroom, and other such oddities.

 

I don't own an AR-15 yet, but I think if one wanted to, they better get on it soon!  (Actually,  I would probably build a .300 Blackout, complete with suppressor).

[Neonred 3,564]

11 hours ago, spookyturtle said:

I’m guessing that many non gun owners aren’t really interested in finding out what it’s all about . And that’s fine as long as they don’t go spouting half truths and wrong information. 

Here is an editorial from a local newspaper.    http://www.flkeysnews.com/opinion/editorials/article200435124.html

Banning high-capacity clips would be a baby step in the right direction

..........Guns should remain legal, but not ones capable of firing 14 rounds per second down range or in a crowded high school hallway. ......

 

Any half truths or wrong info?

 

[Boiler 45,525]

1 hour ago, Neonred said:

Here is an editorial from a local newspaper.    http://www.flkeysnews.com/opinion/editorials/article200435124.html

Banning high-capacity clips would be a baby step in the right direction

..........Guns should remain legal, but not ones capable of firing 14 rounds per second down range or in a crowded high school hallway. ......

 

Any half truths or wrong info?

 

I have no issue in banning clips....

[Steeleballz 7,550]

6 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Ban inner cities!  All of them!  Now!

  

   If that's your way of saying years of segregationary federal housing policies had poor results, I would agree with you. 

[cyclone27 710]

55 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I have no issue in banning clips....

They banned high capacity clips in CA yet not one person has turned any in. 

 

Not to mention it will have little effect.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

[spookyturtle 9,466]

1 hour ago, cyclone27 said:

They banned high capacity clips in CA yet not one person has turned any in. 

 

Not to mention it will have little effect.

I don’t know why anyone would think that someone who paid many hundreds of dollars for a firearm would turn in the magazine or the gun. Ditto for buyback programs. Are you going to turn in $1500 rifle for $50? 

 

I think cars cars are dangerous. I’ll give you $500 for your 2018 Lamborghini. 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

2 hours ago, Boiler said:

I have no issue in banning clips....

I think the nra will no with that 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

2 hours ago, cyclone27 said:

They banned high capacity clips in CA yet not one person has turned any in. 

 

Not to mention it will have little effect.

I would be so surprised if someone turned in a high capacity clip.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 hours ago, Neonred said:

Here is an editorial from a local newspaper.    http://www.flkeysnews.com/opinion/editorials/article200435124.html

Banning high-capacity clips would be a baby step in the right direction

..........Guns should remain legal, but not ones capable of firing 14 rounds per second down range or in a crowded high school hallway. ......

 

Any half truths or wrong info?

 

    

 

14 rounds per second, eh?  No misinformation there.  /sarcasm

 

For those who do not know, it’s probably more like 2-3 rounds per second.  

[Neonred 3,564]

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

    

 

14 rounds per second, eh?  No misinformation there.  /sarcasm

 

For those who do not know, it’s probably more like 2-3 rounds per second.  

Thanks.  I was wondering how long it would take for someone to catch that.  And don't get me started with "clips"....

 

Another opinionated article from a knowledable person,  like some of the contributers here on VJ