TakeYouToTasker Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 10 minutes ago, Buddy Hix said: As a Canadian who is a card carry Conservative and gun owner I feel the pro gun crowd in this thread are absolute lunatics and are the main reason your country will never move past this problem. The reason your country has so many shootings is because your country has so many guns. Period. End of story. Having more hoops to jump through in order to be a gun owner and restrictions on what type of gun one can own as well as restrictions on how and where you can take your gun reduces the amount of guns purchased, which in turn reduces gun violence. Arming teachers (lmfao), needing guns to keep you safe (lol) and every other moronic statement like that is not addressing the root cause of the problem...which is too many guns. Instead of the 2nd amendment/pro gunners racking their brains for scenarios and reasons to keep adding more guns, why don't you try and figure out a way to reduce the number? Gun violence is far more likely to occur in places where guns are strictly forbidden. Criminal pathology seeks victims and victims are more likely to be found among the disarmed. Predators don't prey on the strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 We Canadians are great armchair Buddhas to resolve any problem of mankind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 4 minutes ago, garybusey said: We've already established I'm an idiot and my opinion is wrong. Are you against the government banning citizens from owning nuclear weapons? The question is not germane to my point, or yours. Why are you asking it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Buddy Hix said: I believe the correlation between number of guns and gun violence is well documented. If you'd spent as much time searching Google for that relationship as you did typing that question you'd have your evidence. Because it's on the internet, it must be true. Couldn't be that people have an agenda, nah. I don't even own a firearm, don't want one. But what I DO know is that in this country, once you empower the government to do a small thing, it becomes incredibly easy for them to do much larger things. Edited February 15, 2018 by joesixpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 26 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Again, it's hard to tell if you're stupid or dishonest, though I leave open the possibility that it could be both. You are the one who introduced repealing or changing the Second Amendment. Smoke some more, Bob. If I were you, I would try some smoke or pretty much anything that might help you recover that once great intellect. It is long gone, bro. Would it be possible to make some type of legislative changes involving guns/ammo that would not involve taking existing guns? Think hard genius. I am hopeful you are gonna get this one. Focus....focus....focus. Now think! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 1 minute ago, LeviF91 said: Skipping the fact that these are all infringements for now. Who does the psych e v a l? What are the criteria? Who decides what social media (free speech) keeps you from gun ownership? I am open to discussions about making it harder to get assault rifles, just as soon as someone defines "assault rifle." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: The question is not germane to my point, or yours. Why are you asking it? The US government restricts citizens from a type of Arms they can own. Nobody questions it. It's an infringement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 Just now, Bob in Mich said: If I were you, I would try some smoke or pretty much anything that might help you recover that once great intellect. It is long gone, bro. Would it be possible to make some type of legislative changes involving guns/ammo that would not involve taking existing guns? Think hard genius. I am hopeful you are gonna get this one. Focus....focus....focus. Now think! "shall not be infringed" Time to list your proposed changes so I can evicerate your argument, Bob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 Just now, LABillzFan said: I am open to discussions about making it harder to get assault rifles, just as soon as someone defines "assault rifle." I don't even bother with that anymore, because it just turns into "well that Brady bill seems pretty good" and then I bang my head on my desk. Forget the fact that the AR chambered in 5.56 is arguably the best home defense weapon in existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 4 minutes ago, row_33 said: We Canadians are great armchair Buddhas to resolve any problem of mankind... Dude, you're gonna piss off Trudeau. It's not mankind. It's person kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 1 minute ago, garybusey said: The US government restricts citizens from a type of Arms they can own. Nobody questions it. It's an infringement. YOU SPECIFICALLY SAID IT WASN'T AN INFRINGEMENT, YOU !@#$ING MORON. 35 minutes ago, garybusey said: Government laws regarding background checks and banning military style weapons does not infringe on my right to keep and bear Arms. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 7 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: Dude, you're gonna piss off Trudeau. It's not mankind. It's person kind. i didn't even notice!!! i am thoroughly ashamed and will agonize now for 10 minutes over this... (nice find!!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddy Hix Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 4 minutes ago, row_33 said: I'm very grateful Canada hasn't been hit by violence of this nature or a terrorist act so far... But we don't have a military or a hunting culture or a criminal component that necessitates guns here in Canada. We do have a necessity for guns, I certainly don't bow hunt as often as I hunt with a rifle or shotgun. But we limit who can have access to that option. It's a chicken and egg issue as far as crime goes, if there was a program introduced to lessen the number of guns on the streets the need to feel protected by having one would decrease. Restricting access and implementing a buy back program would do a lot imo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 Just now, DC Tom said: YOU SPECIFICALLY SAID IT WASN'T AN INFRINGEMENT, YOU !@#$ING MORON. I know. Obviously, I'm not bound to a single interpretation to the constitution like you are. Do you agree US citizens should be banned from owning nuclear weapons? Simple question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatorbait Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 1 minute ago, LeviF91 said: Skipping the fact that these are all infringements for now. Who does the psych e v a l? What are the criteria? Who decides what social media (free speech) keeps you from gun ownership? We would still have the right to bear arms. It just wouldn’t be an unregulated free for all. Going strictly off the verbiage written hundreds of years ago is not practical to an evolving and different world that we live in today. The constitution needs to be amended. Any licensed behavioral health specialist. There are psych evaluations done all the time for baker acts and other mental illness patients. This would be paid for out of pocket by the potential buyer. Making a threat on social media or talking about being violent actually isn’t a legal part of free speech and we should start doing something about them. I was just brainstorming. I’m hoping something can be done because while violent crime is going down on average, these incidents with mass casualties in public have been going up. Way up. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 Notice I said on MY right. As it's my personal belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 1 minute ago, LeviF91 said: Forget the fact that the AR chambered in 5.56 is arguably the best home defense weapon in existence. Really? I would think the standard AR-15 is a little too unwieldy for home defense. Even the carbine version strikes me as a little much for your average homeowner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said: "shall not be infringed" Time to list your proposed changes so I can evicerate your argument, Bob. No, it is clear to see that your approach is far more helpful to solving the problem. Just cross your arms, scream about your rights, pretend to care about the victims, and give more thoughts and prayers. I don't have all of the answers. That is one of the purposes of trying to have a discussion. An idea exchange can sometimes result in a reasonable solution. What torpedoes those types of discussions are inflexible fools, such as yourself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 9 minutes ago, garybusey said: Notice I said on MY right. As it's my personal belief. on a day after it's nice you want to insist all of this is all about you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 2 minutes ago, garybusey said: I know. Obviously, I'm not bound to a single interpretation to the constitution like you are. Do you agree US citizens should be banned from owning nuclear weapons? Simple question Obviously, you're not bound to any sort of personal consistency either, which makes it impossible to discuss anything with you at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts