Customer Discussions > Video Games forum

OT: What does Obama's second term mean for gun owners?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 251-275 of 334 posts in this discussion
Posted on Nov 8, 2012 11:40:18 AM PST
Gameresq says:
If God did not want us to eat animals, then why are they made of meat?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 11:40:44 AM PST
FOGE says:
Wow. Good deal. Im 5'10 180 but Im in pretty good shape. More into lifting than cardio.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 11:43:05 AM PST
Gameresq says:
I hate cardio. I only do cardio, because the ladies like to see the abs. Thus, I oblige.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 11:44:27 AM PST
FOGE says:
Haha. I do about 25 mins every other day and I hate it too. Fortunately my girl likes muscles. Doesnt care about abs. And Im probly the leanest guy shes been with.

Posted on Nov 8, 2012 11:45:35 AM PST
Fidel Amaya says:
Im all for Gun Control, to an extent. We can't allow Psychos to get a their hands on Assault Rifles, (EX: Columbine, Aurora, Colorado, Virginia Tech, the Sniper from Virginia). We need to evaluate people a little more before handing them permits to carry weapons.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 11:50:37 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 8, 2012 11:57:17 AM PST
DVvM says:
The problem is that many of these "let's ban scary sounding weapons" laws are based entirely on the perceived scariness of these weapons rather than their actual scariness.

For example, the "Assault Weapons Ban" (which is now expired, so go nuts kids) would ban weapons purely for possessing a bayonet mount or a pistol grip. Now, there may not be a good reason to mount a bayonet on your gun, but if someone is pointing a gun at you the thing you are not worried about is the blade that's attached to it or how the person happens to be holding it, since the impending muzzle flash is a *little* more terrifying. The law, as a result, didn't really accomplish much in practice (which you can tell because it's been expired since 2004, and we have not yet suffered a rash of bayonet stabbings.)

So while "let's keep psychos and criminals from possessing 'assault rifles' " sounds like a really good idea, the whole "how do we pick out which weapons we don't want anybody to have for fear that psychos have them"?

Generally speaking, effectively enforcing the gun laws that already exist is a better strategy for keeping people from getting guns they shouldn't have than making new ones (since, you know, people who are willing to break laws don't really care if you make more laws against whatever it is they're intent on doing).

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 11:51:30 AM PST
Gameresq says:
I feel compelled to note that none of the psychos you mentioned in your post had permits to carry a gun. Criminals have no need for a permit to carry a gun. The millions of law-abiding citizens that seek permits are not the problem.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 11:52:50 AM PST
FOGE says:
Yeah this exactly.

TO those saying we need more laws: Condescending Wonka: Tell me again how criminals follow the laws...

Posted on Nov 8, 2012 11:53:31 AM PST
Gameresq says:
I have a great idea: Let's ban crime instead of guns!

Posted on Nov 8, 2012 11:54:19 AM PST
Uncle Ulty says:
I don't think Obama will try to do much with guns on his second term, but I do think its a good chance he will try to start the beginning stages of decriminalizing marijuana. Not making it legal, but stopping people from getting thrown in jail for a small amount of it.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 12:05:52 PM PST
I also feel complled to note that to my knowledge none of the psychos mentioned used an assault style weapon, with the exception of the Aurora kid. somebody said he used an ar-15

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 12:25:39 PM PST
Bobbum Man says:
I eat animals like cows that are raised on farms specifically for the purpose of being consumed by people. I don't go out into the woods looking for an animal that's just minding it's own business and make it my dinner.

Isn't it the government that is so concerned with animal populations in the first place, be it town, state or national level? And don't they regulate on some level (ie the alligator hunting in LA). So aside from being cruel to animals, hunters are also being taken advantage of by the government by paying for the privilege to kill animals and doing it without pay.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 12:30:43 PM PST
DVvM says:
Where I live, the whitetail deer herd is so severely overpopulated, that the government actually has to hire hunters to come in after hunting season and cull the herd to the degree that it will not be ravaged by large-scale during the winter.

I think it would be better if private individuals were to pay the government to shoot the deer, instead of the government paying private individuals to shoot the deer.

I mean, just so the government says "don't shoot all the X" in one case doesn't mean the government doesn't also want you to go out and shoot a whole bunch of Y.

There's also few people more concerned about cruelty to animals than good hunters. Most will turn down any shot that they know won't be quickly, and cleanly fatal.

Posted on Nov 8, 2012 1:17:43 PM PST
SuperHiro says:
I don't understand the resistance to gun regulation. Banning criminals or people with a history of mental problems from having guns always seems like a positive to me and the only argument I've heard from the other side are things like "oh it won't always work because criminals won't obey the law" but it'll still work sometimes. And what's the downside? You as a gun owner don't get to own an exotic, high rate of fire gun that you don't need and have no justification for having? Sorry but... who cares? Why do you HAVE to have that gun anyways? What possible use do you have as a peacetime citizen for a rifle with a high rate of fire? Are you gonna hunt deer with a machine gun? I mean current laws may not be perfect and have classification issues, but the notion that the solution is to just have no gun regulation at all seems silly.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 1:19:50 PM PST
Smarty says:
Two words.... Red Dawn. I'm kidding of course.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 1:27:06 PM PST
DVvM says:
"People with a history of mental problems" is kind of loaded. I've been diagnosed with certain psychological disorders, but I'm not a danger to anybody, do you think I shouldn't be allowed to have the guns I have (with which I shoot clay or paper targets recreationally).

I mean, sure, there are some crazy people who shouldn't have guns. I just don't think I'm one of them.

In general the way we handle mental illness in our society is a major problem that needs a lot of attention entirely separate from the gun issue.

Banning criminals from having guns is like banning crime though.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 1:33:36 PM PST
SuperHiro says:
It still means they can't walk into a gun store and pick up a gun. Even if it doesn't work universally like I said earlier, it still works sometimes. And the only downside, like I listed is that other citizens don't get to have exotic weapons. Big deal. They don't need them anyways.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 1:37:08 PM PST
Fett986 says:
Citizens don't need exotic cars either, but they have them anyway. Might as well ban those while we're at it.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 1:38:31 PM PST
SuperHiro says:
Cars have a purpose other than killing people. What purpose would you possibly have for a rifle with a high rate of fire?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 1:40:01 PM PST
Fett986 says:
Rifles have a purpose other than killing people as well. Such as target practice and other recreational sports. What purpose would you possibly have for a car that goes in excess of 200 mph?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 1:41:21 PM PST
Duck hunting.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 1:41:38 PM PST
Or an excess of 100 mph...

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 1:43:13 PM PST
McAwesomeo says:
Getting to work very, very fast.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 1:45:39 PM PST
SuperHiro says:
Sorry but I don't care about your recreational use of an automatic rifle it also means any random whackjob can buy it. People going on killing sprees don't buy a car as their weapon of choice. Driving also requires a license to determine your competence. It's already regulated.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 1:53:31 PM PST
Fett986 says:
I would venture to guess that (domestically) people driving cars capable of travelling at excessive speeds kill more people every year than any civilian wielding a firearm of any sort, let alone one capable of a "high rate of fire".

Also, if you've read the thread, you would know that buying a fully automatic rifle is not an option for "any random whackjob". It requires special licensing (when obtained legally. Any firearms obtained illegally are outside the realm of discussion regarding legally obtaining firearms).
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Video Games forum
Participants:  40
Total posts:  334
Initial post:  Nov 8, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 9, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions