CDZ For Those Who Are Opposed to Guns

[jwoodie]

How does this announcement make you feel?



What is with these "gun free" zones? Are you safer when only criminals and terrorists have guns?

THINK ABOUT IT

 

[Arianrhod]

AFAIK, there's only one poster on the entire board who's "opposed to guns."

You might want to reframe your question.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[woz75]

this happened yesterday about 20 mins from where I live - The only fatality was the "good guy" with a gun - lot of good this "gun happy zone" did

1 man dead, 1 arrested after shootout with Neenah police

 

[oldsoul]

How does this announcement make you feel?



What is with these "gun free" zones? Are you safer when only criminals and terrorists have guns?

THINK ABOUT IT

LMAO That was great, I, for one, would feel pretty safe on THAT flight...

 

[hadit]

this happened yesterday about 20 mins from where I live - The only fatality was the "good guy" with a gun - lot of good this "gun happy zone" did

1 man dead, 1 arrested after shootout with Neenah police

So, using that logic, we should have all agreed that gun-free zones do no good a LONG time ago.

 

[Dhara]

I feel lucky to not have to need a gun for protection.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Would the person or persons opposed to guns please show yourself. I've never seen these people but the right says they're everywhere

 

[jwoodie]

AFAIK, there's only one poster on the entire board who's "opposed to guns."

You might want to reframe your question.

If you want to quibble about semantics, it isn't the question you want reframed, but rather the phrase in the title of the OP. "Opposed to guns" is merely shorthand for "in favor of federal restrictions regarding ownership of guns."

For those of you who favor such restrictions, why don't you own up to this position and explain exactly what restrictions you have in mind?

 

[Arianrhod]

AFAIK, there's only one poster on the entire board who's "opposed to guns."

You might want to reframe your question.

If you want to quibble about semantics, it isn't the question you want reframed, but rather the phrase in the title of the OP. "Opposed to guns" is merely shorthand for "in favor of federal restrictions regarding ownership of guns."

For those of you who favor such restrictions, why don't you own up to this position and explain exactly what restrictions you have in mind?

If that's what you meant, that's what you should have said.

What guarantee is there that you won't reword it again if you don't get the answers you want?

 

[oldsoul]

AFAIK, there's only one poster on the entire board who's "opposed to guns."

You might want to reframe your question.

If you want to quibble about semantics, it isn't the question you want reframed, but rather the phrase in the title of the OP. "Opposed to guns" is merely shorthand for "in favor of federal restrictions regarding ownership of guns."

For those of you who favor such restrictions, why don't you own up to this position and explain exactly what restrictions you have in mind?

If that's what you meant, that's what you should have said.

What guarantee is there that you won't reword it again if you don't get the answers you want?

What guarantee is there that the left will not confiscate ALL guns, if given the chance?

 

[Arianrhod]

AFAIK, there's only one poster on the entire board who's "opposed to guns."

You might want to reframe your question.

If you want to quibble about semantics, it isn't the question you want reframed, but rather the phrase in the title of the OP. "Opposed to guns" is merely shorthand for "in favor of federal restrictions regarding ownership of guns."

For those of you who favor such restrictions, why don't you own up to this position and explain exactly what restrictions you have in mind?

If that's what you meant, that's what you should have said.

What guarantee is there that you won't reword it again if you don't get the answers you want?

What guarantee is there that the left will not confiscate ALL guns, if given the chance?

How would that happen, exactly?

 

[jwoodie]

How would that happen, exactly?

1. Federal notification of all gun purchases, to ensure compliance with Terror Watch List.

2. Additional federal restrictions on gun purchases.

3. Federal registration of "assault weapons."

4. Expanded definitions of assault weapons, to include "semi-automatic" weapons.

5. Complete inclusion of all remaining guns.

6. Punitive taxation (and investigation) of gun ownership.

7. Requirement to prove need for a gun.

8. Confiscation of guns from non-approved (non-law enforcement) owners.

 

[320 Years of History]

AFAIK, there's only one poster on the entire board who's "opposed to guns."

You might want to reframe your question.

If you want to quibble about semantics, it isn't the question you want reframed, but rather the phrase in the title of the OP. "Opposed to guns" is merely shorthand for "in favor of federal restrictions regarding ownership of guns."

For those of you who favor such restrictions, why don't you own up to this position and explain exactly what restrictions you have in mind?

If that's what you meant, that's what you should have said.

What guarantee is there that you won't reword it again if you don't get the answers you want?

Off Topic:
I have to agree that an explicit clarification in the opening post as to what the title words implied by the "shorthand" in the thread title would have made a huge difference. Clarity is never a bad thing to have more of.

 

[320 Years of History]

Without at all wishing this actually happen, perhaps some day a radical of some stripe will venture into the "Deep South" and haul off shooting people "left and right." Then we can find out if all those gun toting Southerners -- the ones with the gun rack mounted in the back window of their pickup truck, several of whom are never more than a few hundred yards away -- actually use their guns to do something about it before the cops arrive.

Let's just see how much vigilante justice they exact...I suspect it'd be neither more nor less than we've seen in other parts of the country. Oh wait, that's already happened. Was the outcry in the wake of those events, "We have guns, so we feel safe?" That wasn't what I heard....

 

[M14 Shooter]

How does this announcement make you feel?

What is with these "gun free" zones? Are you safer when only criminals and terrorists have guns?
THINK ABOUT IT

You are unlikely to get an honest response from those who support these zones and/or want more gun control.

 

[jwoodie]

Without at all wishing this actually happen, perhaps some day a radical of some stripe will venture into the "Deep South" and haul off shooting people "left and right." Then we can find out if all those gun toting Southerners -- the ones with the gun rack mounted in the back window of their pickup truck, several of whom are never more than a few hundred yards away -- actually use their guns to do something about it before the cops arrive.

Let's just see how much vigilante justice they exact...I suspect it'd be neither more nor less than we've seen in other parts of the country. Oh wait, that's already happened. Was the outcry in the wake of those events, "We have guns, so we feel safe?" That wasn't what I heard....

Speaking of clarity...?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"For Those Who Are Opposed to Guns"

No one is 'opposed' to guns.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How would that happen, exactly?

1. Federal notification of all gun purchases, to ensure compliance with Terror Watch List.

2. Additional federal restrictions on gun purchases.

3. Federal registration of "assault weapons."

4. Expanded definitions of assault weapons, to include "semi-automatic" weapons.

5. Complete inclusion of all remaining guns.

6. Punitive taxation (and investigation) of gun ownership.

7. Requirement to prove need for a gun.

8. Confiscation of guns from non-approved (non-law enforcement) owners.

And such legislation is exactly where in either the House or Senate – moreover, no one seeks to 'confiscate' guns, the notion is ridiculous.

Private property can't be 'confiscated' absent due process and just compensation pursuant to the 5th Amendment; and due process would be required for each of the 300,000,000 guns in the United States, each and every firearm, not collections or the like, any idea how long that would take, and how much it would cost; and that's assuming guns can be located, in order for firearms to be 'confiscated' a search warranted must first be issued pursuant the 4th Amendment.

Last, any law or measure 'authorizing confiscation' would be stuck down as un-Constitutional, pursuant to the Second Amendment, whose jurisprudence holds that citizens have the individual right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense.

It's difficult to determine if most on the right are indeed ignorant of the law or know the law but are willfully ignorant in an effort to contrive and propagate ridiculous lies such as 'confiscation.'

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Then we should start with the civil government. If civil authorities are in possession of firearms and other equipment that I as a private citizen with a concealed carry permit can not purchase they should have to get rid of it. However if civil authorities think they need such devices to carry out their job then I must need such devices for my own protection.

*****SMILE*****