BBW12OG said:
Civilized said:
packgrad said:
GuerrillaPack said:
Packchem91 said:
BBW12OG said:
Packchem91 said:
^, ^^
Look, I'm not ardent enough of a gun contrarian to argue this. I fully assume all of you here are law-abiding gun owners and will never have a lapse and do something bad.
But though I"ve never read where the 2A "explicitly says you can have military-grade guns" like GP says (clearly, thats his interpretation), I don't think ARs were commonly used military-grade weapons back in 1791.
I was asked what I believe in...i agree with Pineking on a lot of points, just think we as a country could do a lot more about preventing so many deaths from guns.
You really don't think things through before you post do you? I am hoping like hell for your sake that you are on some damn good 10 hour drinking binge. If not, like I said before, you should sit this one out. Nice edit on your earlier post about "high repeating rifles.."
Glad to see you did some research and you were able to learn something. I may try to add that to my signature line... I asked my 10 year old daughter what that was and she looked at me like I was crazy. And for good reason. She knows more about guns than you do and she's not on a message board trying to play "Mr. Know It All" on guns.
Now... for your next lesson. What guns do you think were used in the military in the 1700's?
I am not going to tell you. Look it up.
I will tell you this. They were the SAME guns that the colonists, settlers, British Army, French Army and pretty damn sure every army that had rifles used in the 1700's.
Today, in America, we do NOT use the types of guns that the military use for the most part. There are certain exceptions but I would wager that we have access to less than 20% of the same firearms that the military utilize across the different branches.
And... guess what? WE as AMERICANS are NOT allowed to purchase or own, without a permit, a "fully automatic" gun. Some states won't even allow them at all. Those are MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS... your typical AR rifle is NOT what ANY member of ANY branch of the military would ever use.
Keep flailing... it's damn entertaining. And hopefully, like I said, you are 10 sheets in the wind. If you aren't, lie and say you are.
Ask your daughter if it also sounds crazy that we have 2x more gun deaths per 100 people than lovely Yemen, 3x more than Serbia and Montenegro. Vacation destinations, if ever there were ones.
Only 14,000 Americans are murdered per year using firearms. Per CDC stats: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
Compare that to ~37,000 Americans killed in automobile accidents per year, ~80,000 drug overdose deaths per year, 480,000 deaths per year in the US from cigarette smoking, etc.
Where is the Leftist hysteria calling for a ban on cars or smoking?
Why is it all about AR-15s, when those are probably only used in around 50 homicides per year?
Ohh, but they say "even 50 is too many" and look at those poor children killed, so "do it for the children". As if the same people who champion mass murdering over 600,000 unborn children per year give one rats behind about the lives of children.
80,000 drug overdoses and the people calling for banning guns are calling to legalize drugs. Lol. The AR15 is their whale. There should be no compromise from the right on this. I'm fine with getting rid of whatever supposed trade show loophole there is. I don't think we need to enact more restrictions on mentally fit, law abiding citizens from getting weapons though. Especially with how enabled the left has become.
People are calling for legal recreational opioids?
As much as I hate to respond to you I will never miss the opportunity to point out to every one just exactly how you post just to troll. It would have taken you as much time to google search to find out the answer. But yet you wanted to try and look like you have a "gotcha" moment like your lefty MSM overlords.
Here's to more egg on your face....
https://drugpolicy.org/press-release/2021/02/drug-decriminalization-oregon-officially-begins-today
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/11/04/election-drugs-oregon-new-jersey/
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/could-oregons-decision-to-decriminalize-hard-drugs-provide-a-model-for-the-country
I even linked two of your SOCIALIST MSM propaganda sites so you wouldn't dispute the information. We all know you read something from your MSM overlords you slurp it up like its....a milkshake.
In your usual rush to own a libtard you're ignoring the nuance of the issue and the nuance of my question.
I asked the question because packgrad made it seem like the left was perversely perfectly fine with current rates of drug overdoses or that they were even encouraging more by 'legalizing' hard drugs.
It's a bogus argument.
It conflates the relatively popular movement to legalize recreational marijuana with the almost nonexistent calls to fully legalize hard drugs.
It glosses over the major differences between legalization and decriminalization of hard drugs.
It implies that any such movement, including Oregon's decriminalization stance, is callous and clearly likely to result in more overdoses.
First, Oregon isn't legalizing heroin and other hard drugs. Possessing larger quantities of hard drugs will still result in charges, and selling is still a felony.
As the articles describe, if you simply get caught with a small quantity of hard drugs, you'll be connected with treatment, peer support and recovery services, harm reduction and other health services, and housing and job assistance. Services will be funded through excess marijuana tax revenue.
The precise intent of Oregon's measure is to combat addiction and harm by ending the cycle of criminality and through focused, responsive intervention for users.
The erroneous implication was that legalization was something the left was interested in just for fun, and that Oregon's stance would clearly do harm. It's not, and although the effect of Oregon's progressive approach is not yet known, we know criminalization does't work worth a damn. The intent is to think and act outside the box, and although it may not work it's a clear lever to pull. The way we've approached drugs for decades hasn't worked. The War on Drugs is lost. We have to innovate in this space if it's ever going to get better.
I'm sure you don't care, but I'm not a strong proponent of gun control. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if there were fewer guns on the streets but I think that, while well-meaning, gun control as a political issue is a very divisive distraction; unlikely to be efficacious; and won't significantly impact rates of all-cause suicide or homicides in this country.
I think mental health and community resources and criminal justice reform that increase health, education, and employment opportunities and reduce the prevalence of drugs, gangs, and poverty in our country is where the action is to reduce drug addiction and gun violence (and all other violence).
