What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Should we legalize Full-Auto Rifles, Bazookas and Grenades? (1 Viewer)

Would allowing Full-Auto/Bazookas/Grenades end up with more deaths at these mass shootings?

  • Yes, more deaths will occur with access to these types of Arms.

    Votes: 31 70.5%

  • No, the same amount of deaths will occur with addiitional access.

    Votes: 11 25.0%

  • Unsure.

    Votes: 2 4.5%
  • Total voters
    44
B

BigSteelThrill

Footballguy
Do we love the Constitution enough to undo all the Arms bans?

Often it is said that additional bans are against "freedoms" as an argument. Its THE argument in most cases.  Shouldn't we then have Bazookas and Grenades and Fully-Autos being carried around as well, without any worry about the dangers it presents? If its the damn freedom that is at the forefront, not the results.

Surely we want to enforce and keep all these "freedoms" at every other angle like for the Press, and freedom of Religion and to Assemble and to Petition.  Is the right to Bear Arms different?

Or are subtle, and not-so-subtle, changes allowed to each and every one of these?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't forget to establish gun sanctuary cities where gun enthusiasts can live crime free lives, because of all the law abiding good guys with guns

 
I think armed drones should be legal.  They're great for hunting and for protecting the airspace over your yard.

 
Teachers armed with bazookas would stop those school shootings for sure. Just hand out bazooka proof chromebooks and backpacks. 

 
BigSteelThrill said:
Surely we want to enforce and keep all these "freedoms" at every other angle like for the Press, and freedom of Religion and to Assemble and to Petition.  Is the right to Bear Arms different?
Click to expand...
We actually put limits on all the stuff that you mentioned.  For example, the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances does not mean that you can walk right onto the floor of the Senate and get up in McConnell's face.  Freedom of the press doesn't mean that CNN can air hard core pornography.  The free exercise of religion would not protect a cult that practiced ritual pedophilia.  (Polygamy is a better real-world example, but I think polygamy should be legal so it doesn't work as well for the point I'm trying to make).

Similarly, the right to bear arms doesn't mean that you can own a bazooka.

 
Godsbrother said:
I think armed drones should be legal.  They're great for hunting and for protecting the airspace over your yard.
Click to expand...
If you do that, you need to also legalize surface-to-air missiles so I can react if your drone ventures over onto my side of the property line. 

 
if we do whats being suggested ... which is to repeal common sense laws .... then we need to remove all speed limits on highways, people can text and drive, drink and drive, drug and drive .... no age limits to drive .... why not? 

we have common sense laws RIGHT NOW .... these very few violent people? they need to be addressed, they are the core problem, not the tens of millions of legal law abiding citizens 

 
What about Machine Gun Turrets?  If those can be legalized as well, I'm in.  I've always wanted some of those, like the ones in Aliens, with motion tracking.  To keep my family safe, of course.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
We actually put limits on all the stuff that you mentioned.  For example, the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances does not mean that you can walk right onto the floor of the Senate and get up in McConnell's face.  Freedom of the press doesn't mean that CNN can air hard core pornography.  The free exercise of religion would not protect a cult that practiced ritual pedophilia.  (Polygamy is a better real-world example, but I think polygamy should be legal so it doesn't work as well for the point I'm trying to make).

Similarly, the right to bear arms doesn't mean that you can own a bazooka.
Click to expand...
This thread was full of hilarity until you came along.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
We actually put limits on all the stuff that you mentioned.  For example, the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances does not mean that you can walk right onto the floor of the Senate and get up in McConnell's face.  Freedom of the press doesn't mean that CNN can air hard core pornography.  The free exercise of religion would not protect a cult that practiced ritual pedophilia.  (Polygamy is a better real-world example, but I think polygamy should be legal so it doesn't work as well for the point I'm trying to make).

Similarly, the right to bear arms doesn't mean that you can own a bazooka.
Click to expand...
Why you shackling me bro? 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
We actually put limits on all the stuff that you mentioned.  For example, the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances does not mean that you can walk right onto the floor of the Senate and get up in McConnell's face.  Freedom of the press doesn't mean that CNN can air hard core pornography.  The free exercise of religion would not protect a cult that practiced ritual pedophilia.  (Polygamy is a better real-world example, but I think polygamy should be legal so it doesn't work as well for the point I'm trying to make).

Similarly, the right to bear arms doesn't mean that you can own a bazooka.
Click to expand...
But on this particular facet it states... "shall not be infringed upon".  Does that make it different than the rest?

 
BigSteelThrill said:
But on this particular facet it states... "shall not be infringed upon".  Does that make it different than the rest?
Click to expand...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

 
Agreed, but do some see it differently because one was a general overlay of several facets? While one was an exacting statement to that particular facet itself. No matter?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat said:
if we do whats being suggested ... which is to repeal common sense laws .... then we need to remove all speed limits on highways, people can text and drive, drink and drive, drug and drive .... no age limits to drive .... why not? 

we have common sense laws RIGHT NOW .... these very few violent people? they need to be addressed, they are the core problem, not the tens of millions of legal law abiding citizens 
Click to expand...
You're finally getting it. :thumbup:

Afterall, it's not the car, phone, alcohol or the drugs. it's the person using them 

 
msommer said:
Yup, Politeness is what most people remember about the west ward expansion in the US. Certainly not guns and lawlessness
Click to expand...
I posted it as a joke but I do think there is some truth to the saying. People are at their worst online where there is no chance of being held accountable for their words, but people tend to be more careful with their words when in public and speaking directly to each other. How much more polite would they be if the thought everyone was carrying?  

I don’t think everyone should carry as people do tend to lose there tempers pretty easy, but when I carry I work very hard to avoid all conflict and be extra polite. 

 
The Commish said:
You're finally getting it. :thumbup:

Afterall, it's not the car, phone, alcohol or the drugs. it's the person using them 
Click to expand...
so where is the movement to ban alcohol? reduce the speeds car's can drive to 25 mph maximum, ban prescription drugs that are so abused ?

there are none ... because those tens of thousands of dead people is acceptable ... people want to drive their cars, drink and drug up ... that 40 or 50 thousand people die every year directly related? irrelevant 

 
Stealthycat said:
so where is the movement to ban alcohol? reduce the speeds car's can drive to 25 mph maximum, ban prescription drugs that are so abused ?

there are none ... because those tens of thousands of dead people is acceptable ... people want to drive their cars, drink and drug up ... that 40 or 50 thousand people die every year directly related? irrelevant 
Click to expand...
:shrug: be the tail blazer....... at least now you have been shown your approach to guns applied to other problematic topics.

 
Absolute tyranny that I can't legally defend myself with an intercontinental ballistic missile armed with a thermonuclear warhead. 

 
The Commish said:
:shrug: be the tail blazer....... at least now you have been shown your approach to guns applied to other problematic topics.
Click to expand...
I don't think we need to pass more laws on drink driving.

I think we need to 5X or 10X harder laws punishing those who DUI - that'll help. Every citizen in the USA knows not to drink and drive. Period. If they do? the consequences of doing it just isn't there to make them stop. 

Period

I see it the same with guns. We have enough common sense gun laws. Increase penalties. Open up juvie records. That would help IMO. I like finding these people before they act - more of that. I like arming schools and concerts and malls and sending a message that we will not be terrorized.

I don't need to be a trailblazer in that regard. I'd love to ban smoking cigarettes - but most American's don't care to get behind that. Go figure huh ?

 
Stealthycat said:
I don't think we need to pass more laws on drink driving.

I think we need to 5X or 10X harder laws punishing those who DUI - that'll help. Every citizen in the USA knows not to drink and drive. Period. If they do? the consequences of doing it just isn't there to make them stop. 

Period

I see it the same with guns. We have enough common sense gun laws. Increase penalties. Open up juvie records. That would help IMO. I like finding these people before they act - more of that. I like arming schools and concerts and malls and sending a message that we will not be terrorized.

I don't need to be a trailblazer in that regard. I'd love to ban smoking cigarettes - but most American's don't care to get behind that. Go figure huh ?
Click to expand...
Tough to take this seriously given your reaction to my repeated suggestions to severely increase the punishments. Those are all over the gun thread too. You are either full of it now or have started to see the light. 

 
Ilov80s said:
Absolute tyranny that I can't legally defend myself with an intercontinental ballistic missile armed with a thermonuclear warhead. 
Click to expand...
You're shackled, I tell ya, shackled!

 
African captured, thrown into the hull of a “floating coffin”, chained ankle-to-ankle to the man next to him, laying in his own (and other’s) filth 22 hours a day:  “I’m shackled”

StealthCat: “I hear you. I can’t pew pew pew like I want to.”

 
This is not the Automobile or Alcohol danger/deaths thread. Or any other activity or items.

Posts of that kind of silliness are frowned upon here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill said:
This is not the Automobile or Alcohol danger/deaths thread. Or any other activity or items.

Posts of that kind of silliness are frowned upon here.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is the serious thread where we try to convince ourselves that people on the other side secretly want to own bazookas.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Yeah, this is the serious thread where we try to convince ourselves that people on the other side secretly want to own bazookas.
Click to expand...
Or we ask if its okay to limit Arms and continue to do so, or if it really is against what the Constitution stands for.

And it was never claimed as serious, or not silly.  But it has a specific topic.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
Tough to take this seriously given your reaction to my repeated suggestions to severely increase the punishments. Those are all over the gun thread too. You are either full of it now or have started to see the light. 
Click to expand...
What??

I've been consistent the whole time, we really don't need new laws on most things. We need citizens who make responsible choices 

 
Stealthycat said:
What??

I've been consistent the whole time, we really don't need new laws on most things. We need citizens who make responsible choices 
Click to expand...
I said

Stealthycat said:
hours ago, The Commish said:
Tough to take this seriously given your reaction to my repeated suggestions to severely increase the punishments. Those are all over the gun thread too. You are either full of it now or have started to see the light. 
Click to expand...

 
I would spend time pulling up all the quotes on me saying 5x or 10x penalties and asking why death penalties aren't carried out sooner and arguing that yes, heavy punishment IS a deterrent to crime .... and no, we don't need more laws saying don't kill people or don't be violent. we already have those - but if you forgot all those times The Commish I don't think me bringing all that back up would help any

 
Stealthycat said:
I would spend time pulling up all the quotes on me saying 5x or 10x penalties and asking why death penalties aren't carried out sooner and arguing that yes, heavy punishment IS a deterrent to crime .... and no, we don't need more laws saying don't kill people or don't be violent. we already have those - but if you forgot all those times The Commish I don't think me bringing all that back up would help any
Click to expand...
SC I’ve proven to you this isn’t the case so I won’t bother again.   

@BigSteelThrill - while I applaud your attempt with this thread, I made this same point countless times in the gun thread and it went about as effectively as it has here.  Also I blame you for sucking me back in to replying to Stealthy!! 😉

 
Stealthycat said:
I would spend time pulling up all the quotes on me saying 5x or 10x penalties and asking why death penalties aren't carried out sooner and arguing that yes, heavy punishment IS a deterrent to crime .... and no, we don't need more laws saying don't kill people or don't be violent. we already have those - but if you forgot all those times The Commish I don't think me bringing all that back up would help any
Click to expand...
Kinda makes all the protests against others saying the same things that much more puzzling....almost like you aren't reading their posts, rather, see the name, ignore what they say/said and post something in reply that has nothing to do with what you quoted even if what you quoted is in agreement with you.  Weird.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993 said:
SC I’ve proven to you this isn’t the case so I won’t bother again.   

@BigSteelThrill - while I applaud your attempt with this thread, I made this same point countless times in the gun thread and it went about as effectively as it has here.  Also I blame you for sucking me back in to replying to Stealthy!! 😉
Click to expand...
why aren't you telling The Commish the same ? did you read what he posted?

The Commish said:
my repeated suggestions to severely increase the punishments
Click to expand...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Will The GOP Push For A Nation Wide Federal Abortion Ban When It Attains Needed Majorities? (7/2/22 12:11 PST)
Replies
0
Views
232
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade? (6/27/22 17:59 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner
BobbyLayne
The 25 Greatest Films of the 21st Century So Far
2 3 4
Replies
155
Views
6K
El Floppo
El Floppo

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top