Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gun Control

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ChiefIllini1
    replied
    "Suing a company for making a product that works as advertised would be a bad precedent...."
    These assault rifles are advertised as murder weapons? Interesting. I would advise you to change your story and claim that they are advertised for target practice, or for collecting, or for making sure that you fit in during the club picture:
    .
    .
    .

    In the meantime, the gun industry uniquely evades liability even though it costs the United States Health Care system $170 billion each year. Guess who's paying the fat cat gun manufacturers' bills? You and me. We are paying in higher federal and state taxes and in higher insurance premiums. All because some guys get off on their cos-play.
    .
    .



    Leave a comment:


  • MAL
    replied
    Originally posted by ChiefIllini1 View Post
    The Challenge: Name common sense gun safety laws that would've stopped the FedEx mass murders.

    1. Assault Rifle Ban.

    This Gun nut used two assault rifles to kill eight people in minutes. Assault rifles are useless except for killing people. They are especially deadly because of the giant nasty wounds they create.

    2. Remove Lawsuit Protections from Gun Sellers/Makers.

    Currently, the only industry in America protected from lawsuits is the gun industry. Would the gun shop owner who sold 2 assault rifles to a wild-eyed 18-year old have sold those guns if the shop owner could be sued? This not only makes common sense, but it's ******* crazy that these murderers have immunity.

    3. "Red Flag" Law that Mandates Removal of All Guns.

    This murderer already had a shotgun taken away and an FBI investigation. He shouldn't have been allowed to buy guns.

    4. Universal Background Checks.

    This law makes so much sense that even a majority of the GQP want it passed. This kid would've been flagged if Congress passed their UBC Bill.
    There is no such thing as an assault rifle, but I will play along with your ignorance.

    Joe Biden: "Today I will sign an assault weapons ban"

    Mass shooter: "Damn now I have to take my pistols"

    Should the car manufactures and dealers be held responsible when a nut job mows down a crowd with his car...or a fertilizer manufacture be sued when when someone builds a bomb using their product...or the brick manufacturer when BLM smashes a window. Suing a company for making a product that works as advertised would be a bad precedent, and probably wont be found to be constitutional in court.

    Red flag laws sound reasonable...(here it comes)...but, the reality is that they will be abused. Within 10 minutes after Red Flag laws are passed, you will be on the phone to 911 screaming MAL is crazy as a bed bug. I will lose my constitutional rights with out due process and found to be guilty until proven innocent.

    I don't know if he passed a back ground check or not, but here is the reality. His Mother Red Flagged him...he either passed a background check or illegally bypassed the background check process, and his gun was not legally purchased. He basically violated every single one of your proposed laws...but if we just had one more law, he would have come to his senses and not killed anybody. There is no law that can stop crazy. The promise of a trip to hell for all eternity might work if he was a believer. The promise of a humiliating death might work for some, but he was suicidal. If you can't predict his crime the only way to stop it is to kill him.

    Leave a comment:


  • dadudaman4
    replied
    Response: 1. Not likely in most instances as the perpetrator is not limited to the number of guns he can bring. 2. No. Under what theory of liability would you allow suits? Manufacturers are required to warn of potential dangers that are not readily apparent when the product is used in a foreseeable way, and to make sure the product is produced properly, without defects. Failure to warn that a gun can shoot? 3. No. It's not a bad idea, but apparently the authorities did not pursue the procedure for taking the guy's guns away (perhaps they can be sued). 4. This is the false narrative pursued by anti gun folks like you. The facts are that most guns used in mass shootings (not the hundreds of every day shootings you have in major cities) are/were legally purchased. But it makes people feel good that they're doing something.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChiefIllini1
    replied
    The Challenge: Name common sense gun safety laws that would've stopped the FedEx mass murders.

    1. Assault Rifle Ban.

    This Gun nut used two assault rifles to kill eight people in minutes. Assault rifles are useless except for killing people. They are especially deadly because of the giant nasty wounds they create.

    2. Remove Lawsuit Protections from Gun Sellers/Makers.

    Currently, the only industry in America protected from lawsuits is the gun industry. Would the gun shop owner who sold 2 assault rifles to a wild-eyed 18-year old have sold those guns if the shop owner could be sued? This not only makes common sense, but it's ******* crazy that these murderers have immunity.

    3. "Red Flag" Law that Mandates Removal of All Guns.

    This murderer already had a shotgun taken away and an FBI investigation. He shouldn't have been allowed to buy guns.

    4. Universal Background Checks.

    This law makes so much sense that even a majority of the GQP want it passed. This kid would've been flagged if Congress passed their UBC Bill.

    Leave a comment:


  • MAL
    replied
    I haven't read anything about that shooting yet, but give me an example of a commonsense law or regulation that would have stopped that shooting. If every Fed Ex employee were required to carry a weapon, I speculate that he would have never attempted the crime...that's common sense. Was he in a gun free zone...maybe a law saying "HEY, you cant bring a gun here" would have stopped him. You need more guns in Chicago in the hands of good guys. My dad often told the story of the only thing that he ever won, it was a gun with a gold trigger from his employer.

    Now you want to talk about illicit funds, Tech giants spent a half billion dollars in this last election in an attempt to influence the vote counters. How much did the NRA give? Democrats have always wanted to get the money out of politics so they could put it in the hands of politicians.
    Last edited by MAL; 04-17-2021, 09:36 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChiefIllini1
    replied
    Ghost Preacher is in a fight for hundreds of thousands of lives with Devil Preacher. Which side are you on?
    .
    .

    Leave a comment:


  • MAL
    replied
    Originally posted by ChiefIllini1 View Post

    The current background check system is like a law that prohibits you from robbing banks ... on Sundays. There are at least six ways to get around that bank robbing law.
    ...and when the next shooter passes a back ground check before going on a shooting spree you will want another "common sense gun law" because the last one worked so well. Do you have any suggestions on how to get the guns out of the hands of criminals? I think that is where we should have some agreement. Can we agree that we need to enforce the current laws and get the guns out of the hands of criminals? If we can't agree on that, you just want to disarm the lawful citizens and not criminals.

    Taxing or regulating someone that has never committed a crime with a gun will do absolutely nothing to save lives.

    The first thing the Nazi's did before killing 6 million Jews was take their guns.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChiefIllini1
    replied
    " ... closing most loopholes currently in place."
    The current background check system is like a law that prohibits you from robbing banks ... on Sundays. There are at least six ways to get around that bank robbing law.

    Leave a comment:


  • MAL
    replied
    We already have back ground checks...how is that working so far? If you appose back ground checks, you are advocating for the repeal of existing back ground checks. I don't know anybody that is against back ground checks, but the government is too incompetent to implement a policy even if it is a good one. A federal back ground check is unconstitutional. Back ground checks do not affect the criminals as much as they affect the law abiding citizens.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChiefIllini1
    replied
    .
    .
    "This [past] month, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passed two gun reform bills with some GOP backing. Eight Republicans voted in favor of H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021, which passed with a vote of 227-203. The legislation would expand background checks to be required for all firearm sales and transfers nationwide, closing most loopholes currently in place."
    Blessed are the rational, my friends.

    Leave a comment:


  • dadudaman4
    replied
    If you really want to reduce gun deaths, then you should primarily focus on mental health treatment, not the "feel good" executive orders Senile Joe has issued, which will not accomplish anything. As I pointed out earlier on this site, "In 2017, over half of the nation's 47,173 suicides involved a firearm. The U.S. Department of Justice reports that about 60% of all adult firearm deaths are by suicide, 61% more than deaths by homicide."

    Leave a comment:


  • MAL
    replied
    Originally posted by HuffHall View Post

    My God if a more ironic thing has ever been said on this site please show it to me. The king of cherry picking calls someone out for cherry picking. Mal you're one in a million and thank God for that, what a moron
    Give me one example of where I don't give the big picture stats. or posted just part of an article because the rest of it didn't fit my narrative...just one example.

    Leave a comment:


  • HuffHall
    replied
    Originally posted by MAL View Post
    Chief, you are an idiot. The United States is a little better than average when you are looking at violent crime deaths. There is a reason that you have to cherry pick stats that only show a small portion of the picture. You don't care if gang bangers have guns as long as they keep the kill numbers high so you can use their murder stats to take guns from law abiding citizens...you just don't want Republicans to have guns. https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/...ce/by-country/
    My God if a more ironic thing has ever been said on this site please show it to me. The king of cherry picking calls someone out for cherry picking. Mal you're one in a million and thank God for that, what a moron

    Leave a comment:


  • dadudaman4
    replied
    No, you can't. A little thing like the Constitution is in your way. I know folks like you consider it to be nothing more than a nuisance to be avoided, but it's there nonetheless. And the issue in places like Chicago and Detroit is not guns, it's the disease of decades of failed social policies. Guns are a symptom of that disease.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChiefIllini1
    replied
    The video below perfectly illustrates my point in this thread. It just happened, so the timing is *chef's kiss* beautiful synchronicity. In it, has-been Fox News pundit Eric Bolling was being interviewed on a BBC programme. He was going on and on about how moving the baseball all-star game was bad for Black-owned businesses in Atlanta. The person debating him questioned his crocodile tears for minority businesses, and Bolling stormed out.

    His debate opponent was right.

    Has Bolling ever in his life cared an iota about minority-owned businesses? Of course not. As his debate opponent noted, he raised the issue as a "wedge" and to "distract."



    Just like the folks in this thread crying tears of concern for the deaths in Detroit or Chicago. The issue is, and always has been, too many guns.

    Now, can I get a "NO GUNS"?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X