Same way anything else is enforced. If a gun tragedy happens with your weapon it is investigated to determine if the weapon was properly secured. If not, you can face criminal and civil charges.
Why an AR-15?
- Thread starter HawkOptimist
- Start date
But not enough to vote in legislators who will adopt such measures. That's the problem. Lip service vs. action.
They need to run. Right now it's base-pandering nonsense.
Left Candidate: We're gonna get those guns!
Right Candidate: No way in hell they will take our guns!
Neither platform is even the damn issue. It placating hogwash.
That's bullshit. Red flag laws, raising the age to 21 for automatic rifles, background checks for all sales, and other moderate gun control measures are out there from the left and the right says "no" to all of them. They tell their constituents "No way in hell they will take our guns" and those people lap it up even though it is patently false. Some of them will say "we should have some common sense gun laws" but then they continue their support for the right wingers flinging misinformation at them.
These things will not happen unless right wing gun owners stop supporting the candidates who spew the "coming for our guns" garbage.
I'd vote in favor of all those measures.
And it's not BS. But I agree not every Dem has the same stance as Beto.
Last edited:
Automatic rifles have been illegal for decades. You cant even remeber the most basic facts of the situation, why would anyone "compromise" with a group that is so uneducated on the subject?
Furthermore, do you just ignore the candidates who clearly say they want to confiscate certain guns? Are we supposed to trust theyre lying? Rationalize that for us...
Its not semantics - its two extremely different categories of firearms and shows an absolute lack of knowledge on the subject. Hence not wanting a group so uneducated on the subject writing laws on the subject.
And how many of you could have avoided the situation altogether had you not felt confident because you had the firearm?
When someone kicks your door in at 1am in a 2 story house and you're upstairs asleep, I guess I could have called 9-11 and waited 30 min.
And for the record, I didn't have confidence, I was scared shitless. Guns don't make a person brave.
They are a tool for a variety of purposes (I already listed above) and defense is one of them.
In these (message board) discussions, I disagree. I'm a little more forgiving. If a lawmaker, however, attempted to put forth ignorant legislation, then I'd be a little less forgiving.
Had riley typed "semi" in front of automatic, would you be in favor of the proposal?
It is bullshit because that is an outlier that is being passed off by the right as the position of the left.
Again, you would vote for those measures and others say they would as well but they won't vote for the candidates promoting them. And the right wing knows this.
Sigh - I meant semi-automatic. I'm sure all but the most dullardly of you understood that.
*they're. SMFH
Please bitch, that's ridiculous. The vast majority of gun enthusiasts are not running through thousands of dollars a month of ammo at the range unless their employer is footing the bill, most of those yahoos don't have a pot to piss in as it is.
That was my point. I even said it wasn't accurate. It's the pandering narrative that isn't true by most, only by the fringe, but passed on as the norm. My apologies for not wording it better.
Yet smart enough to know the basics of firearms - what does that say about you?
Nope.
One of the factions that I consider "gun nuts" are the owners that declare..."yeah, just try and take my guns".
You qualify?
I understand and support my rights, but I'm not going to grandstand, order a t-shirt, or become some blow-hard like those you're referencing, so nope. I don't qualify.
Still waiting for your rationalization regarding candiadates and politicians who explicitly say they want to confiscate guns. Do we trust theyre lying? (lemme know when the lack of logic on that one hits you).
There's a big difference between what dipsticks like Beto propose (and yes, Ted Cruise is our other Texas dipstick) and what elected politicians are actually putting forth. Most know there needs to be compromise because sweeping bans like what he [Beto] proposed will never happen. Sensible gun reform should be looked at.
Lol - at you for thinking that is the litmus test for intelligence. Another demonstration of your idiocy.
You continue to be terrible at this.
Just yesterday Rep Cicilline said stabilizing braces turn the firearm into an automatic weapon as a justification for support of the newest House gc efforts, so dont be forgiving - they are so far removed from reality, nothing, no matter how trivial or elementary it may seem, can be taken for granted. The people writing these laws are making @RileyHawk look educated on the subject.
*candidates and, again *they're
I already answered that - those are outliers. Try again skippy.
To answer the OP’s question… It’s none of your business why a responsible, law abiding citizen wants to own an AR-15.
I retract my previous statement. Good grief.
What if one never says it but has this bumper sticker (asking for a friend)?
My Wife Yes, My Dog Maybe, My Gun Never
Is Beto lying? No.
Will Beto get elected in Texas (with that platform)? No.
IF Beto were to get elected, would he be able to enact such an extreme stance? No. He'll have to learn compromise.
What part of this are you not following? Politicians (elected, appointed, and/or candidates) vocally support confiscation of certain guns. You agree this happens, correct?
So are we to believe theyre lying or otherwise hyperbolic? Or are we to put them in a bucket of "outlier" at the utterance of such a phrase? And if so, at what do the "outliers" become a "group"?
Last edited:
Also, if politicians are having this discussion anywhere close to how they're being handled on here and other social media platforms, then nothing will ever change.
There needs to be a sense of empathy/sympathy to an opposing position, a willingness to listen, THEN (hopefully) an opportunity to compromise. I am sympathetic to those who oppose guns. However, that doesn't change my belief. Much like abortion, if you don't want one, don't buy one. BUT, that doesn't solve the problem, does it? Compromises need to be made to secure the safety of others which is why I'm willing to inconvenience myself for the sake of others--back ground checks, training courses, waiting periods, cumbersome safes (unless biometric), etc.
There needs to be a sense of empathy/sympathy to an opposing position, a willingness to listen, THEN (hopefully) an opportunity to compromise. I am sympathetic to those who oppose guns. However, that doesn't change my belief. Much like abortion, if you don't want one, don't buy one. BUT, that doesn't solve the problem, does it? Compromises need to be made to secure the safety of others which is why I'm willing to inconvenience myself for the sake of others--back ground checks, training courses, waiting periods, cumbersome safes (unless biometric), etc.
Last edited:
So what’d you do?
Regardless, the chances of this happening if you are not involved in illegal activity are slim to none. Certainly not frequently enough to warrant keeping loaded firearms easily accessible throughout the house.
Same with concealed weapons. For most people, the chances are you are never going to be in a place where you need a weapon, or can get to it quickly enough if you do. So you spend all that hassle carrying your piece to the grocery store for that 1 in a million(s) chance you are in some sort of threat situation where having a weapon is worth the hassle and danger.
It’s like planning your entire life around getting stuck by lightning or attacked by murder hornets.
FFS - as has been discussed, there are some but they are few, thus an outlier. And banning sales of certain guns is not confiscation.
