Here is how to get common sense gun laws passed in congress.

a reply to: FauxMulder

Ah, you're obviously an expert.

My apologies, nice addition with the fully automatic AR video.

I concede to your vastly superior expertise.

a reply to: ausername

Thank you sir.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Actually, within many states including mine and my fine neighbor state of Texas (I think Texas, anyway), you are completely within your legal rights to ventilate a looter/burglar/robber as long they are inside of your home. In some states it's inside the *property* line. This is with or without said stereo or TV in their possession.

You just can't shoot them in the back or if they're attempting to flee.

If you loot in Louisiana during a declared state of emergency you can expect to be shot and die with very little sympathy given.

Here is how to get common sense gun laws passed in congress.

Common sense eh.

Common sense would be reading the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendments.

Then get a dictionary and look up the defitinitions of the words Infringe,deny,disparage.

And pay special attention to the fifth where it clearly says, " No person shall be held answerable to a capital or otherwise infamous crime....'.

Then stop and the 14th amendment where it talked about the RIGHT to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that EVERY single person has equal protection under the law.

Fill in the blank with the amendments that deal with due process and actual crimes committed be proven in courts of law when EVERY single person has the presumption of innocence.

Instead of the anti thesis of gun control that declares every single person in this country guilty without ever seeing their days in courts of law and crimes be proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

Common sense gun laws.

What an effing joke.

a reply to: RickyD

Well, that'd be an insinuation then, not a generalization. Seems fair to assume that people would care about what happens in their businesses?

I'm sure it'd work the other way around too, if white people started open-carrying in black businesses all the time. I think most 2nd amendment defenders are white though, and there are more whites overall too, so it'd be more effective the way OP said it. And there are more white business owners in congress than there are black business owners.

I guess it'd have been more sensitive to just say businesses in general, sure. But it can't be racist to just imply that racism exists.

I need to talk to my black shooting buddies...lol They are scary now... geez

Some simple observations to a few posts here... With 90% of the few million gang members being non-white maybe an open carry young black male would be viewed differently by police if this wasn't the reality in their lives.

originally posted by: neo96
Here is how to get common sense gun laws passed in congress.

Common sense eh.

What an effing joke.

Also, maybe enforcing the few 1000 gun laws on the books already might be a part of common sense. When the left today says "common sense gun laws" that is code for banning gun altogether since they ignore the first few 1000 laws we already have.

originally posted by: ShawnTBear
Minorities across the country start open carrying AR-15 or similar type of weapons, to white business's and watch the flood of complaints and watch congress get right on it. History says it works, in case you don't know about The Mulford Act, look it up.

WOW, just a few racial innuendos in your op. Say what you REALLY mean FFS.

As long as they are legally carrying, who give a flying F#.

Get over your little SJW crusade
Camouflaged as gun control.

a reply to: YouSir

In almost every state, you have to be in danger to shoot someone, even on your property. Texas is an exception. There have been several high profile lawsuits where the intruder wins the case when they are injured by the homeowner.

a reply to: ausername

You don't see a problem with the 4th amendment rights being infringed upon? Much less 2nd amendment?

a reply to: Abysha

Do you generalize everything in your life like this?

I consider myself fairly average in most respects...and I couldn't care less about who owns firearms. Concealed or otherwise. It's their actions by which I judge.

a reply to: seagull

Within the context of what I posted, limited to what I suggested I suppose I don't.

Not if it can prevent a future tragedy like what happened in Vegas days ago.

a reply to: ausername

For short term "safety", you'll sacrifice future freedoms...so long as it affects someone else, I'm guessing.

Do you remember a little thing called the Patriot Act?? Look it up, and its effects upon our freedoms, that, too, was to keep us "safe".

a reply to: ausername

Not if it can prevent a future tragedy like what happened in Vegas days ago.

First off that law against murder was created to supposedly stop it from happening. It didn't.

The 1968 gun control act was created to supposedly created to stop it from happening. It didn't.

The 1990s Brady Handgun Prevention Act was supposedly created to stop it from happening it didn't.

Pay special attention to the BHPA.

That was the first time in American history Americans had to ask the states permission to practice their right.

So for over 200 years. There wasn't any problems with the second amendment AS IT WAS WRITTEN.

The simple fact is there is a small percentage of the US population that doesn't care about it's LAWS.

a reply to: seagull

We can debate with comparisons, but I'll just concede to you now. My suggestion was an alternative to outright bans on assault weapons altogether, because that's where the national debate is heading, and will probably happen eventually.

If you're ok with the random psychopath exploiting the system by purchasing weapons and ammunition, explosives etc in a short time without a database system to alert authorities from already existing data collected from legal purchases then it will inevitably happen again.

imo.

Sorry, I stumbled into the wrong thread anyway.

thats why the cops say aim to kill them so they cant sue you afterwards.

a reply to: Cutepants

Guess you're one of those who can't admit when they're wrong...its ok though, no sweat off my back. I'd rather those who think like the OP and the ones who defend it out themselves publicly anyway. Its easier when I know who to avoid

originally posted by: seagull

Do you generalize everything in your life like this?

I consider myself fairly average in most respects...and I couldn't care less about who owns firearms. Concealed or otherwise. It's their actions by which I judge.

What would we be talking about if the ass drove a loaded dump truck through the crowd of 22,000? Result would have most likely been worst and we would be only talking about his actions.

The bottom line is if a person wants to kill they will do it no matter what.

originally posted by: ShawnTBear

When do you people want to discuss race and the part it plays in society and no matter how much you cover your eyes or ears, this bias exists.

As soon as you're ready to admit that the bias is earned.

a reply to: Xtrozero

These same folks are smart enough to know that that particular conversation concerning trucks would sound idiotic. ...and it would.

Why the same argument can not translate over is strange. I drive a truck, big ol' pick up truck, commercial grade frequently...it's a juggernaut on wheels. The damage it could inflict is as nightmarish as any firearm could inflict--as history shows. How often have cars and trucks been wielded as weapons?

My firearms are no more likely, in fact less likely, to cause any damage then that truck. Why am I the one to blame, along with the millions of safe owners the ones who need to give up rights, or make concessions? Frankly, I'm done making concessions.

There are a sufficiency of laws concerning firearms, no more are needed. In fact a streamlining of them would probably serve a better purpose.

But it's always more effective to appeal to emotion, rather than reality. Not right, mind you...just more effective.