What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[Dorkington]

1 minute ago, Boyst62 said:

1. Tweets

2. Not the time to talk mental health and teen hardships

3. He's crazy (if white (if black, blame whites))

4. He saw something on YouTube 

5. Bully and ignore him

6. Repeat, ignore mental health

 

You're an idiot 

 

How does a gun ban take guns away?  Wanna take my guns (which I don't own any). Come ory them from my cold dead hands 

Like I said, it only happens if society is ready to agree to it. See Australia. 

[LeviF]

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

...and you're proud of that post?  Seriously?

 

Do you get paid to miss the point, or is it more of a hobby?

 

1 minute ago, Dorkington said:

The "easy" solution would be an aggressive gun ban. That'd take a lot of guns out of circulation. There'd still be a lot of 'illegal' guns, but it'd be a start. But that's not going to happen until we as a society agree to it, and we certainly don't at the moment. If we keep the same amount of firearms, the only way to lower the amount of these situations, is to have some comprehensive changes on the social safety net side of things, AND a general societal change where we are kinder to each other. And, again, neither of those are going to be changed anytime soon. 

 

So... thoughts and prayers it is. It sucks. It really !@#$ing sucks. But it's the price of "freedom", I guess. 

 

Move somewhere with a gun ban if you really hate it that much.

 

But nah, leftists never put their money where their mouth is, they just want to destroy what's left of the liberties people fought and died for not even 250 years ago. 

 

[CommonCents]

Just now, Justice said:

Follow the playbook. That didn’t take long. 

 

1. Prayers

2. Not the time to talk about gun control 

3. He’s crazy (if white)

4. He saw some things on ISIS on the internet 

5. Do nothing 

6. Repeat 

Well if you are intrested in having an honest conversation the screen caps were taken before the Social Media sites shut down his profiles. "Allah Akbar", ISIS, and some Syrian resistance group on FB.

 

So like it or not that stuff existed before nutzo went off and did what he did yesterday.

 

So he can't bring a backpack to school? Why? Well isn't the answer obvious?

 

He is kicked out of school? 

 

Kids at the school joke that he will be the one to shoot up the school?

 

Talks about killing people and posts repeated pictures of killing animals.

 

Praises Allah, ISIS

 

He was holding a neon sign that said "IM !@#$ING NUTS" and NOONEDIDNUFFIN

[LeviF]

5 minutes ago, Justice said:

Lol. I’m the bigot in this equation? I simply come up with an idea to limit the amount of clips and ammo that are sold and this is where you choose to take it? You’re the bigot. 

 

Why is it that gun-grabbers are nearly always the ones that know the least about guns?

[Justice]

5 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

lol, yeah, whites are more violent because they managed to conquer the world despite making up a relatively small fraction of the population.  Whatever dude.  To me, this ain't about race.

 

I'm glad the point of my post wasn't completely lost on you, but your conclusion is sad to me.  I want all American citizens to enjoy the rights preserved for them in the Constitution, including any that happen to be Muslims.  Stripping people's rights is always bad.

I’m not talking about just conquering the world. I’m talking about Monday, or Tuesday, or any other day or any other year.

 

Listen, I realize fully that there are thousands and thousands of evil Muslims out there. It’s obvious. The proof is there, but I constantly get attacked over it as if other people’s race isn’t the same or even worse. 

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, LeviF91 said:

 

Why is it that gun-grabbers are nearly always the ones that know the least about guns?

What do ya need to know but that they can kill. 

[LeviF]

1 minute ago, Justice said:

 

Listen, I realize fully that there are thousands and thousands of evil Muslims out there. It’s obvious. The proof is there, but I constantly get attacked over it as if other people’s race isn’t the same or even worse. 

 

Oh, so the point of my post was lost on you.  The point was to point out how ridiculous your idea actually sounds.  That I should be put on some sort of watchlist for exercising my rights.  I thought you might be more sensitive to that line of thinking.

[Bob in Mich]

1 minute ago, LeviF91 said:

 

Why is it that gun-grabbers are nearly always the ones that know the least about guns?

 

Might be because many people don't give a crap about your hobby until it starts resulting people getting killed.  If there was suddenly a string of lacrosse stick murders across the country I would start giving more thought to lacrosse sticks and how the murder spree could this be stopped.

 

 

[Justice]

Just now, LeviF91 said:

 

Oh, so the point of my post was lost on you.  The point was to point out how ridiculous your idea actually sounds.  That I should be put on some sort of watchlist for exercising my rights.  I thought you might be more sensitive to that line of thinking.

Trust me. It wasn’t. I know what you’re getting at. I just think one has nothing to do with the other. I’m not taking away any rights. I’m not even banning guns. I just think a moderate amount of ammo and clips for assault rifles are necessary and should be put into law. 

[LeviF]

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Might be because many people don't give a crap about your hobby

 

 

 

Gonna stop you right there because you clearly don't understand the fundamental issue here.

[boyst]

15 minutes ago, Justice said:

Lol. I’m the bigot in this equation? I simply come up with an idea to limit the amount of clips and ammo that are sold and this is where you choose to take it? You’re the bigot. 

Wait, what's a clip?

14 minutes ago, Dorkington said:

Like I said, it only happens if society is ready to agree to it. See Australia. 

So, let's rip up our constitution and start again eh?

[LeviF]

1 minute ago, Justice said:

Trust me. It wasn’t. I know what you’re getting at. I just think one has nothing to do with the other. I’m not taking away any rights. I’m not even banning guns. I just think a moderate amount of ammo and clips for assault rifles are necessary and should be put into law. 

 

So which part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?  Do we need to make comparisons to the fourth amendment in order for people to get it?  What makes reading my email an unreasonable violation of my fourth amendment rights while putting me on a list due to my purchases and then limiting said purchases a reasonable infringement on my second amendment rights?  Do you have any idea how much ammo I can go through in one hour at the range?  Or in one week of training at the range with my department?

[CommonCents]

More.

 

He wrote "I'm going to be a proffesional school shooter" and a screen grab was sent to the FBI back in September. 

 

 

[Bob in Mich]

3 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

Gonna stop you right there because you clearly don't understand the fundamental issue here.

 

I have been in several gun threads before, including this one.  I doubt I don't understand your issue.

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, Justice said:

1. Whoever is in the business of selling those weapons. 

 

2. Where in the constitution does it say you need an AR-15?

 

3. Damn right it’s ok. Who the hell needs mutilple clips? 

That's not how the Constitution works.

 

The Constitution was designed as a cage around the government, limiting what the government is allowed to do, not on what the citizens are allowed to do.  The Second Amendment says that the government "shall not infringe" on the people's right to keep and bear arms.

 

"Shall not infringe".

 

You're asking them to infringe.

 

That would require a Constitutional Amendment, and after that it would require you to come and take away my ammunition.

 

If you'd like to try, I have a very specific way I'll give it to you.

[Chef Jim]

17 minutes ago, Dorkington said:

Like I said, it only happens if society is ready to agree to it. See Australia. 

 

As I mentioned in the other thread. If you take away my guns how do I defend myself against the bad guys who have weapons who break into my home?  Do I throw a chair at him? Try to hit him with a hammer?  I have lots of knives and I’m real good with them. Maybe I can stab him while he’s shooting me?  

 

Have you ever lived in a high crime area?  

[Justice]

1 minute ago, LeviF91 said:

 

So which part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?  Do we need to make comparisons to the fourth amendment in order for people to get it?  What makes reading my email an unreasonable violation of my fourth amendment rights while putting me on a list due to my purchases and then limiting said purchases a reasonable infringement on my second amendment rights?  Do you have any idea how much ammo I can go through in one hour at the range?  Or in one week of training at the range with my department?

In my original post I said you have to be able to prove how many bullets you went through before buying more. Gun ranges will have to be involved in the database. Receipts for proof. List how many bullets you walk in with and how many you leave with. 

[LeviF]

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

I have been in several gun threads before, including this one.  I doubt I don't understand your issue.

 

Then you wouldn't have called it "your hobby," you would have said, "your rights," because clearly that's what you don't give a **** about.

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, Chef Jim said:

 

As I mentioned in the other thread. If you take away my guns how do I defend myself against the bad guys who have weapons who break into my home?  Do I throw a chair at him? Try to hit him with a hammer?  I have lots of knives and I’m real good with them. Maybe I can stab him while he’s shooting me?  

 

Have you ever lived in a high crime area?  

Don't take away all guns, just military style weapons that can kill lots of people fast. They can figure that out and no I won't define anything for you 

[LeviF]

Just now, Justice said:

In my original post I said you have to be able to prove how many bullets you went through before buying more. Gun ranges will have to be involved in the database. Receipts for proof. List how many bullets you walk in with and how many you leave with. 

 

So you're really stuck on this whole database for the 72% of Americans who shoot guns.  Got it.  I'll keep that in mind.

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

22 minutes ago, Dorkington said:

The "easy" solution would be an aggressive gun ban. That'd take a lot of guns out of circulation. There'd still be a lot of 'illegal' guns, but it'd be a start. But that's not going to happen until we as a society agree to it, and we certainly don't at the moment. If we keep the same amount of firearms, the only way to lower the amount of these situations, is to have some comprehensive changes on the social safety net side of things, AND a general societal change where we are kinder to each other. And, again, neither of those are going to be changed anytime soon. 

 

So... thoughts and prayers it is. It sucks. It really !@#$ing sucks. But it's the price of "freedom", I guess. 

 

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-states-america

 

Some info on America's gun "problem" relative to other parts of the world. 

So your "start" is to disarm those that follow the law while understanding that those that are willing to rob, murder, rape, etc will choose to keep their guns?  I will consider turning in my guns once you can guarantee without any doubt that there are no other guns in the population.  Until that point, I will not even consider handing them over so people like you can feel a false sense of security and accomplishment.

[Justice]

God forbid this type of thing ever happens to any of you guys or your loved ones but I wonder if your stance would change if it did. 

[Chef Jim]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Don't take away all guns, just military style weapons that can kill lots of people fast. They can figure that out and no I won't define anything for you 

 

Anyone with a gock with lots of loaded clips can kill a lot of people fast. Good to see logic and well thought out responses from you still don’t exist since I’ve stopped coming here. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

29 minutes ago, Justice said:

Follow the playbook. That didn’t take long. 

 

1. Prayers

2. Not the time to talk about gun control 

3. He’s crazy (if white)

4. He saw some things on ISIS on the internet 

5. Do nothing 

6. Repeat 

Freedom can be dangerous, but it's the best thing we have.

[Teddy KGB]

7 minutes ago, Commonsense said:

More.

 

He wrote "I'm going to be a proffesional school shooter" and a screen grab was sent to the FBI back in September. 

 

 

 

Fbi was overwhelmed by spying on trump and didn’t have time to address this ? 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Freedom can be dangerous, but it's the best thing we have.

 

This is the truth. We may suffer adverse affects, but it's 100000% better than, say, Europe where crazed Islamic nutjobs mow crowds down with guns, and literally NO ONE can respond.

 

[Bob in Mich]

1 minute ago, LeviF91 said:

 

Then you wouldn't have called it "your hobby," you would have said, "your rights," because clearly that's what you don't give a **** about.

 

First, I think Americans need to be able to acquire some level of weapons for self protection.  

 

Why does this discussion have to devolve into an all or nothing discussion.  There must be some middle ground of U. S. gun ownership if both sides wanted to look for it.  What I typically see is the so called slippery slope being mentioned.  In other words, gun proponents claim that can't give an inch or soon they will be bare handed.  Horseshit argument too.

 

How can so many of you folks bringing up the constitution not see that it is the 2nd AMENDMENT.  It was a change to the constitution, right?  At the time, as a country we felt a change was needed to correct an issue with the document so we changed the constitution.  It is not unchangeable once enough people think that is needed.  Please stop with the Biblical equivalences.

[CommonCents]

Just now, Teddy KGB said:

 

Fbi was overwhelmed by spying on trump and didn’t have time to address this ? 

Don't know, I have no idea how many wackadoodles they have to filter through from reports but this dipshits Neon Sign had to be among the brightest.

[Big Gun]

10 minutes ago, Justice said:

In my original post I said you have to be able to prove how many bullets you went through before buying more. Gun ranges will have to be involved in the database. Receipts for proof. List how many bullets you walk in with and how many you leave with. 

Yup, the criminals will be all for this. SMH!

[DC Tom]

13 minutes ago, Commonsense said:

More.

 

He wrote "I'm going to be a proffesional school shooter" and a screen grab was sent to the FBI back in September. 

 

 

 

Well there's your problem.  What dumbass sends that to the FBI?  It's not their job to intervene with local or even state police matters.

[LeviF]

5 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

 

Why does this discussion have to devolve into an all or nothing discussion. 

 

 

Because the Constitution is all or nothing.  "Shall not be infringed."

 

 

5 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

There must be some middle ground of U. S. gun ownership if both sides wanted to look for it.  What I typically see is the so called slippery slope being mentioned.  In other words, gun proponents claim that can't give an inch or soon they will be bare handed.  Horseshit argument too.

 

 

There is no middle ground.  Leftists have made this abundantly clear.  Ever since 1934, leftists have been constantly eroding at gun rights.  History says that the slippery slope argument is not even close to horseshit.

 

5 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

 

How can so many of you folks bringing up the constitution not see that it is the 2nd AMENDMENT.  It was a change to the constitution, right?  At the time, as a country we felt a change was needed to correct an issue with the document so we changed the constitution.  It is not unchangeable once enough people think that is needed.  Please stop with the Biblical equivalences.

 

Then change it.  Amendments are just as much a part of the Constitution as Article I.  Get another one passed.

Edited February 15, 2018 by LeviF91

[boyst]

18 minutes ago, Commonsense said:

More.

 

He wrote "I'm going to be a proffesional school shooter" and a screen grab was sent to the FBI back in September. 

 

 

They were too busy trying to attack Trump. The nitwits of the FBI are too stupid and coward to do anything

13 minutes ago, Justice said:

God forbid this type of thing ever happens to any of you guys or your loved ones but I wonder if your stance would change if it did. 

You're beyond insulting at this point. 

[CommonCents]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

Well there's your problem.  What dumbass sends that to the FBI?  It's not their job to intervene with local or even state police matters.

Maybe that's why no one paid attention? The school had the most information, then the state, and lastly the screen cap for the Feds?

 

Wouldn't you hope a screen cap like that would result in a quick data base search where they would then see the local gun charge? Maybe that would have lead to a deeper dive into what this kid was doing with his time?

[Bob in Mich]

2 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

There is no middle ground.  Leftists have made this abundantly clear.  Ever since 1934, leftists have been constantly eroding at gun rights.  History says that the slippery slope argument is not even close to horseshit.

 

I just said I am for some level of gun ownership.  So, I have invalidated your theory.  I am one that has a middle ground opinion.  There are a lot that hold this opinion.

 

If your political forces can keep things now from moving an inch, why, figuratively, couldn't these same forces stop the rights concessions after moving any reasonable inches that could help our citizens? 

[LeviF]

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

So, I have invalidated your theory.

 

 

 

No, you haven't.  Frankly, I don't believe you, and I don't believe any gun-grabber when they say things like that.  Gun owners have agreed to compromises many times only to have it thrown back in their faces by the same !@#$s who made them promises.  Enough is enough.  I refuse to compromise on my 2nd Amendment rights.

 

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

If your political forces can keep things now from moving an inch, why, figuratively, couldn't these same forces stop the rights concessions after moving any reasonable inches that could help our citizens? 

 

Have you been paying attention?  They can't and they won't.  The most potent political force "for" 2nd Amendment rights is the NRA who just recently decided to compromise on certain firearm parts and accessories. Don't put words in my mouth.

[Warren Zevon]

5 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

No, you haven't.  Frankly, I don't believe you, and I don't believe any gun-grabber when they say things like that.  Gun owners have agreed to compromises many times only to have it thrown back in their faces by the same !@#$s who made them promises.  Enough is enough.  I refuse to compromise on my 2nd Amendment rights.

 

 

What compromises have gun owners agreed to many times?

[LeviF]

7 minutes ago, garybusey said:

 

What compromises have gun owners agreed to many times?

 

NFA, 1934

FFA, 1938

GCA, 1968

CCA, 1990

Brady Bill, 1994

 

The introduction of the Brady Bill is really the first time the NRA fought for anything, and even then it passed by a wide margin.

Edited February 15, 2018 by LeviF91

[TakeYouToTasker]

6 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

First, I think Americans need to be able to acquire some level of weapons for self protection.  

 

Why does this discussion have to devolve into an all or nothing discussion.  There must be some middle ground of U. S. gun ownership if both sides wanted to look for it.  What I typically see is the so called slippery slope being mentioned.  In other words, gun proponents claim that can't give an inch or soon they will be bare handed.  Horseshit argument too.

 

How can so many of you folks bringing up the constitution not see that it is the 2nd AMENDMENT.  It was a change to the constitution, right?  At the time, as a country we felt a change was needed to correct an issue with the document so we changed the constitution.  It is not unchangeable once enough people think that is needed.  Please stop with the Biblical equivalences.

Your posts are getting more ignorant.  I'm not even sure how that's possible, but here we are.

 

If the bolded is your understanding of how the Bill of Rights came to be, then you need to read up on your history.

 

As for changing the Constitution by amending the Second Amendment?  Do you know what the process for changing the Constitution is?  Now, looking at that, do you know what percentage of the nation's legislatures are held by folks whose constituents looking to ban or restrict guns and gun ownership?

 

Here's a hint:  given the current ideological makeup of the country, and 50 year trends, you're far more likely to see a Constitutional Amendment banning or restricting abortion (a proposition with a likelihood of zero point zero) than you are to see a repeal/change of the Second.

 

And even if you do successfully amend the Constitution, you still have an even more difficult problem ahead of you:  you have zero idea how many guns there, what types of gun there are, where they are, and how much ammunition there is.  None.  No idea.

 

Soooo... you, and you meaning the federal government, need to criminalize every single person in the country by default, and do wildly invasive, rights decimating, door to door complete searches of every single property and person in the entire country.  This is problematic even if every single person capitulates, which they absolutely won't.  You have massive segments of the population that object to census taking and won't participate in that.  Now you're talking about violating the rights of hundreds of millions of people?  Good luck with that.

 

Banning guns would result in more gun violence and death than you can possibly imagine.  You'd be instigating a civil war.

[Bob in Mich]

5 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

No, you haven't.  Frankly, I don't believe you, and I don't believe any gun-grabber when they say things like that.  Gun owners have agreed to compromises many times only to have it thrown back in their faces by the same !@#$s who made them promises.  Enough is enough.  I refuse to compromise on my 2nd Amendment rights.

 

 

Have you been paying attention?  They can't and they won't.  The most potent political force "for" 2nd Amendment rights is the NRA who just recently decided to compromise on certain firearm parts and accessories. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

I didn't put any words in your mouth.  I just claimed the words you were writing were not necessarily accurate.  I demonstrated that there is middle ground and the slippery slope argument is invalid.  As mentioned, If your political forces can currently control the legislative agenda, why couldn't those same forces stop any future movements?

 

Ever see this Jim Jefferies comedy bit on guns.  The guy uses humor to make some good points.   He uses some rough language so not safe for work viewing.

 

part 1

 

part 2

 

[LeviF]

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

I didn't put any words in your mouth.  I just claimed the words you were writing were not necessarily accurate.  I demonstrated that there is middle ground and the slippery slope argument is invalid.  As mentioned, If your political forces can currently control the legislative agenda, why couldn't those same forces stop any future movements?

 

Ever see this Jim Jefferies comedy bit on guns.  The guy uses humor to make some good points.   He uses some rough language so not safe for work viewing.

 

part 1

 

part 2

 

 

Are you even reading what the !@#$ I'm typing?  Doesn't anyone notice this?  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!