Rustic
Diamond Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 58,769
- 5,895
LolIf I’m being completely honest I have more issues with regulations than I show when I debate on this board. I usually pick a side and then argue that position. My hope is to bring out as many arguments from both sides as possible to get a wide variety of perspectives.didn't piss me off - just got old to keep going back to vast extremes when we're trying to pin down why you want to regulate mag capacity. it's like you were avoiding giving a simple answer.I don’t mean to suggest they are normal situations the are extreme situations to make the point I’m trying to make painfully clear. It’s effective with clarifying boundary’s and defining concepts that I’m trying to communicate. I wasn’t trying to piss you off. That’s how I thinkit's what you were going after. you tend to go WAY OUT THERE as if it's a normal situation. for someone who says they try to stay centric, you sure do go to extremes to either be cute, or think you're proving a point. i just got tired of trying to figure out which.That’s not what I said. But it is a valid question to ask whether both brothers should be banned from buying guns and for how longneither was "so we need to arrest 2 kids fighting and never let them buy guns".
i wanted to equate suggestions to the goal. you are ok with "well we did SOMETHING" of which i think is bullshit. if doing "something" doesn't fix it, then you do "something else". in this case, MORE regulation.
when do we stop going "well we did SOMETHING" and sit the fuck down and figure out what we can do that doesn't violate the constitution? all these mythical extremes you go to are chatter, to me, to avoid addressing why we don't fix this and are ok with "well we did something".
Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.
Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?
Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book
You’re barking up the wrong tree, your solutions are no solutions at all. Political correctness has no moral credibility or authority on anything