Jump to content

Mass shooting at El Paso Walmart/and also Dayton OH


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

When the 2nd was written dueling was still legal as well.

 

I think you'll find more support for legalized dueling than you will for the 2nd here.

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

I think you'll find more support for legalized dueling than you will for the 2nd here.

LoL... 

 

I support the 2nd.  Just make infringable (is that a word?) like the 1st can be infringed on.

 

Guns are a public nuisance.  There is no doubt about that.

 

We can get creative with taking some firearms away and not take them ALL away. We do with the 1st amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ExiledInIllinois said:

LoL... 

 

I support the 2nd.  Just make infringable (is that a word?) like the 1st can be infringed on.

 

Guns are a public nuisance.  There is no doubt about that.

 

We can get creative with taking some firearms away and not take them ALL away. We do with the 1st amendment.

 

This ignores not only the philosophy behind the 1st and 2nd Amendments, but also the plain text in each.

 

As it stands now, I will no longer debate gun control with anybody.  I won't comply with further laws.  I will not call my representatives to urge them to vote pro-2A as it is a useless waste of time.  If anybody wants my firearms, you are welcome to murder me to take them.  I'll be sitting in my home peacefully as I have for years. 

 

Eat my whole entire ass, thank you.

  • Haha (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

This ignores not only the philosophy behind the 1st and 2nd Amendments, but also the plain text in each.

 

As it stands now, I will no longer debate gun control with anybody.  I won't comply with further laws.  I will not call my representatives to urge them to vote pro-2A as it is a useless waste of time.  If anybody wants my firearms, you are welcome to murder me to take them.  I'll be sitting in my home peacefully as I have for years. 

 

Eat my whole entire ass, thank you.

 

Not for nothin', but you barely even have an ass, you skinny mother *****.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Switzerland has interesting gun laws.  They have a lot of guns - 2 million in a nation of 8 million (including babies).  It's quite common for families to go to the range and shoot together.  " Switzerland hasn't had a mass shooting since 2001, when a man stormed the local parliament in Zug, killing 14 people and then himself. ........ In 2016, the country had 47 attempted homicides with firearms. The country's overall murder rate is near zero. "

Many Swiss see gun ownership as part of a patriotic duty to protect their homeland - a lot of the same language people who favor gun ownership here might say.

But the Swiss have very specific regulations on guns.  They have mandatory military training, of which safe gun use is an important part.  Military veterans may purchase their weapon, but they must obtain a permit.  Gun sellers have to follow strict licensing procedures, and Cantons (roughly equivalent to our states, but the size of a large US county) issue permits and keep a log of guns owned in their jurisdiction.  Gun owners who want to carry their weapon for "defensive purposes" must prove they can properly load, unload, and shoot their weapon and must pass a test to get a license.  And yes, guns need to be locked up when not in use and safed when being transported.

We require people to prove they can safely drive a car and restrict the licenses of people not able to operate a vehicle safely (impaired vision, interlock after drunk driving).  I like guns, I use guns, but I don't understand where the fanatical foaming refusal to allow any kind of regulations on guns comes from.

 

 

Right on, with freedom comes responsibility.  Except when you want to buy/own a gun, then we fight responsibility tooth and nail.  I say this as someone who owns and uses 5 guns.  

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Binghamton Beast said:

 

But what about the criminals that carry handguns illegally? What type of test do they have to pass?

 

What about them?  If permits are required, gun sales require specific procedures and checks, it's illegal to carry an unlicensed, unpermitted gun and required to lock up guns at home, then it becomes much more difficult for criminals to find guns to carry illegally. 

No law or regulation will address all problems or stop all crime.

What about we accept that and start trying some practical things that other countries have found effective WITHOUT banning private gun ownership?

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

What about we accept that and start trying some practical things that other countries have found effective WITHOUT banning private gun ownership?


 

 

Because the sad fact is, there IS a slippery slope, and once you allow one inch of regulation, the people who want TOTAL gun control will push for a total ban.

 

It's not even debatable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2019 at 1:52 PM, Gugny said:

 

 

Actually, I'm pretty sure Judas Priest was before either of these.  Actually went to trial, accused of subliminally telling two boys to commit suicide.

http://www.pbs.org/pov/dreamdeceivers/   

 

Yep, I remember watching this documentary with my dad back in 92 on PBS.  The tone was typical "heavy metal bad", "kids today....", but they guy dug into the situation enough it became plainly obvious the two young men were pretty screwed up from their family life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HeHateMe said:

 

Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. 

 

If a stronger background check stops 1 shooting, isn't that worth it?

 

Will it?

 

Or could stronger laws actually hinder someone stopping the a mass shooting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Because the sad fact is, there IS a slippery slope, and once you allow one inch of regulation, the people who want TOTAL gun control will push for a total ban.

 

It's not even debatable.

 

The people who want total gun bans will push for that regardless.  As will the pro-NRA paranoids fight any regulation.   How about most of us in the middle stop letting them inhibit the common sense responsibilities which should have been instituted long ago?  

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GaryPinC said:

The people who want total gun bans will push for that regardless.


Exactly. There is no appeasement of the anti-gunners. They want it all, and if you grant them a fraction of it, it won't stop them. Better to not tolerate any regulation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

This ignores not only the philosophy behind the 1st and 2nd Amendments, but also the plain text in each.

 

As it stands now, I will no longer debate gun control with anybody.  I won't comply with further laws.  I will not call my representatives to urge them to vote pro-2A as it is a useless waste of time.  If anybody wants my firearms, you are welcome to murder me to take them.  I'll be sitting in my home peacefully as I have for years. 

 

Eat my whole entire ass, thank you.

So... Now YOU, NOT the firearms are a public nuisance.

 

Send in the Marines!  ...To make sure Levi only has one muzzleloader like they did in 1789.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Joe in Winslow said:


Exactly. There is no appeasement of the anti-gunners. They want it all, and if you grant them a fraction of it, it won't stop them. Better to not tolerate any regulation.

 

Alternatively there are people who want anarchy therefore we should probably never deregulate something or we may risk the desintigration of our society as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

Alternatively there are people who want anarchy therefore we should probably never deregulate something or we may risk the desintigration of our society as a whole.

 

OK, let's do it this way:

 

Since we're all in the mood for regulating things, how about we regulate leftist speech? No more rallies, no more left-leaning papers. Sounds good?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Joe in Winslow said:


Exactly. There is no appeasement of the anti-gunners. They want it all, and if you grant them a fraction of it, it won't stop them. Better to not tolerate any regulation.

 

You honestly believe the anti-gun people are even against the classic firearms, like muzzleloaders... Or even more modern smooth bore shotguns?

 

Yeah... I can see the hand guns. Hand guns are made for killin', they ain't no good for nothin' else and if you like to drink your whiskey you might even shoot yourself.
So why don't we dump 'em people to the bottom of the sea before some ol' fool come around here wanna shoot either you or me.

2 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

OK, let's do it this way:

 

Since we're all in the mood for regulating things, how about we regulate leftist speech? No more rallies, no more left-leaning papers. Sounds good?

 

We can... When it becomes a public nuisance.  

 

But... You're not the one to declare it a public nuisance.

 

We are in agreement that guns are a public nuisance, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

You honestly believe the anti-gun people are even against the classic firearms, like muzzleloaders... Or even more modern smooth bore shotguns?

 

Yeah... I can see the hand guns. Hand guns are made for killin', they ain't no good for nothin' else and if you like to drink your whiskey you might even shoot yourself.
So why don't we dump 'em people to the bottom of the sea before some ol' fool come around here wanna shoot either you or me.

 

Yeah, man, there are people...including some in this thread I'm sure...who want all firearms banned. It's a reality.

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

Because the sad fact is, there IS a slippery slope, and once you allow one inch of regulation, the people who want TOTAL gun control will push for a total ban.

It's not even debatable.

 

So fine, let them push.  Push back.

It's a fallacy.   If the majority of people in the country don't want to ban guns, but do want gun regulation, it doesn't matter if extremists push, it won't happen.  But for people who use and respect guns to not even consider and discuss what kind of regulations might work in our country because "Oh Noes!   Sky might fall if we do!"

 

Irrational in my opinion.

 

Instead what happens is we get laws drafted by people who maybe have never used a gun, certainly never used a gun as a tool, with silly definitions of "assault weapon" or restrictions on the number of bullets in a clip that accomplish nothing.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...