But I have a god given right to bear arms, and it says this in the constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefish
I already answered this, there is no reasonable purpose for anything you’ve listed so no one would ever own them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty_Aus
What you consider reasonable infringes my god given right. Or at least those rights given to me by the founding fathers.
*removes my tongue from cheek*
Why are these nut jobs not using bombs? Answer that please.
They could do even more damage and further their cause.
Making a bomb is not for the faint of heart.
Many bombers have been a victim of their own device.
In Canada AR15's are legal. But you have background checks, pyschiatric etc. and I think there is a 28 day time frame that successful applicants must wait through.
A month is a long time for someone who may be acting impusively.
Relativley few people require rifles (hunters) and zero per cent of them require semi-automatic action.
No one in a non military environment requires semi-automatic action.
It may make their hunt easier but it also enables the nut job
Find me actual people that believe what you’re saying and that have billions of dollars to buy nukes and you might have a point instead of a ridiculous argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty_AusBut I have a god given right to bear arms, and it says this in the constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefish
What you consider reasonable infringes my god given right. Or at least those rights given to me by the founding fathers.
*removes my tongue from cheek*
i mean honestly people can make a few uncomfortable sacrifices now or they can wait until the government does what it does best; TSA II Electric Boogaloo where our police are fully militarized and have sweeping mandates and judges who dont sign warrants are replaced with ones who will.
also please understand; this is right around the corner. its not some abstract on the horizon, just beyond the curve of the earth. right now, people are making serious proposals to create rings of steel around _schools_ to protect them from.......
...........american citizens.
i suggest anyone crying foul on totally superficial privileges like owning military weapons consider whether or not its worth it.
Using the 2nd amendment as grounds to own an AR is just as ridiculous. Even more so as it's a disingenuous argument in todays modern world.Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefishFind me actual people that believe what you’re saying and that have billions of dollars to buy nukes and you might have a point instead of a ridiculous argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty_Aus
Speaking of that 200 plus year old document. Here's the beginning of itQuote:
Originally Posted by Salty_AusUsing the 2nd amendment as grounds to own an AR is just as ridiculous. Even more so as it's a disingenuous argument in todays modern world.Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefish
the right belongs to individuals, exclusively for self-defense in the home,[6][7][8][9] while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons
Talk about interpretations
I ain't no fore-father but I'd be willing to bet they would consider the AR-15 to be both dangerous and unusual
Even scholars struggle to interpret the 2nd amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by limitlesSpeaking of that 200 plus year old document. Here's the beginning of itQuote:
Originally Posted by Salty_Aus
the right belongs to individuals, exclusively for self-defense in the home,[6][7][8][9] while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons
Talk about interpretations
What's a militia or two between friends?
https://www.ocala.com/news/20190711/...ers-with-ar-15
You think this 61 year old man gets out alive without an AR15?
Who the hell Rob's a trailer on a giant lot. Seems much more targeted than random.Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefish
That's called cherry picking and if you want to go there I would trade that guy's life with those of dozens/hundreds of innocent childrenQuote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefish
taken out by the same miracle machine.
Soft - cock should have had an m60 or a mini gun at every window... and he'd not be in hospital.Quote:
Originally Posted by limitlesThat's called cherry picking and if you want to go there I would trade that guy's life with those of dozens/hundreds of innocent childrenQuote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefish
taken out by the same miracle machine.
Cherry picking? Just because the national media doesn’t report stories on guns saving peoples lives doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen daily.Quote:
Originally Posted by limitlesThat's called cherry picking and if you want to go there I would trade that guy's life with those of dozens/hundreds of innocent childrenQuote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefish
taken out by the same miracle machine.
Next thing you’ll tell me is cops only kill black people.
Yes that is the definition of cherry picking.Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefishCherry picking? Just because the national media doesn’t report stories on guns saving peoples lives doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen daily.Quote:
Originally Posted by limitles
Next thing you’ll tell me is cops only kill black people.
I've said it before I'll say it again....If this one type of weapon allows you to take out your prey with greather ease but also allows
some crazy to kill hundreds of innoncents as easily then I vote if off. I don't care one bit how better you can hunt or how often you face an incoming home invader. Get a different gun. Results will be the same
What kind of person feels their hunting prowess comes before the lives of children?
That invasion you threw in......was it just two people? How many shots are required? How many shots
do the invaders even expect? But all is good, just talk the families of those mowed down. Try that
Still holding on to the idea that if AR15s are made illegal that crazy people willing to commit mass murder will abid by that law huh? I really wish you were right, I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by limitlesYes that is the definition of cherry picking.Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefish
I've said it before I'll say it again....If this one type of weapon allows you to take out your prey with greather ease but also allows
some crazy to kill hundreds of innoncents then I vote if off. I don't care one bit how better you can hunt or how often you face an incoming home invader. Get a different gun. Results will be the same
i fully admit that execution of any disarmament policy would have to be left to armed cyborgs.
Biden was talking about an attempted buy back but he admitted he wouldn’t forcefully take anyone’s gun with his plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Hey I didn't even say that. At the very least step up the controls. You are a de-regulated society and it's fucking you upQuote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefishStill holding on to the idea that if AR15s are made illegal that crazy people willing to commit mass murder will abid by that law huh? I really wish you were right, I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by limitles
If everyone who applied for use of the AR-15 was Mr. America Hunter no problem. But when these weapons are available on a relative whim to Joe Crazy we see problems.
So if you the law abiding citizen is inconvenienced one day, one month, for the sake of others losing their lives it's absurd to not address it
And btw "illegal" points to purchaser. We're talking about big business here. Major bucks for the manufacurers etc.
They will still make a profit with guns of every other sort. They should be regulated from even selling.
Realize who really wins in this game
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefishBiden was talking about an attempted buy back but he admitted he wouldn’t forcefully take anyone’s gun with his plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
so the thing is, the first pass is going to be a red flag law, this is from trumps mouth. and no matter how you look at it, it starts with a knock on the door pretty much. a whoooole lot of those knocks are going to result in rounds in egress.
Cyborgs are people too!Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefish
so the thing is, the first pass is going to be a red flag law, this is from trumps mouth. and no matter how you look at it, it starts with a knock on the door pretty much. a whoooole lot of those knocks are going to result in rounds in egress.
To the fellow sitting on his mountain who happens to like guns... he sees it as tyranny.
You know Hitler took away guns? *laughs*
Old dude was targeted for sure. He recognized one of the invaders from a craigslist hookup.Quote:
Originally Posted by monsterjWho the hell Rob's a trailer on a giant lot. Seems much more targeted than random.Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefish
Unless I read that wrong.
Cyborgs vs Preppers, the next reality TV hit... sonatine you are a genius.
im all about those ppvs and livestreams.
I like guns. Have owned many and wanted many more.
Think a shotgun is reasonable protection for a home... 9mm backup perfect.
AR is a vermin gun. I'm sure folks in certain places need them.
Bah, people don't need guns in general.
I hear folks in Canada often leave their front doors unlocked..
I for one welcome our new robot overlordsQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
The funny thing is you think the knock is possible. Soldiers and police officers who are often AR owners themselves, are going to do this 0.0% of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefish
so the thing is, the first pass is going to be a red flag law, this is from trumps mouth. and no matter how you look at it, it starts with a knock on the door pretty much. a whoooole lot of those knocks are going to result in rounds in egress.
you really wouldn't need to try and take the guns. the vast majority of people would voluntarily turn them in as opposed to doing jail time. this would take a huge number out of circulation. also, outlaw the sale of the bullets.
the goal is to not cause an immediate elimination of mass shootings, but a gradual one.
lol gg background checksQuote:
NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre spoke with Trump on Tuesday after the president expressed support for a background check bill and told him it would not be popular among Trump’s supporters, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to freely discuss internal talks. LaPierre also argued against the bill’s merits, the officials said.
https://www.mediaite.com/trump/nra-c...checks-report/
And around and around we go. Sure some people will voluntarily give back their guns but these are people that are law abiding citizens that would never in a million years commit mass murder. So does taking their guns away help solve the problem of mass murders? I say no. This is an inefficient way to attempt to solve the problem that is gonna piss off millions of Americans and cause even more division.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefishAnd around and around we go. Sure some people will voluntarily give back their guns but these are people that are law abiding citizens that would never in a million years commit mass murder. So does taking their guns away help solve the problem of mass murders? I say no. This is an inefficient way to attempt to solve the problem that is gonna piss off millions of Americans and cause even more division.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
That's what the Democrats want . They have murdered people before to gain popularity in elections and keep secrets .
is it even a debate that, over time, taking away guns will reduce casualties?Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefishAnd around and around we go. Sure some people will voluntarily give back their guns but these are people that are law abiding citizens that would never in a million years commit mass murder. So does taking their guns away help solve the problem of mass murders? I say no. This is an inefficient way to attempt to solve the problem that is gonna piss off millions of Americans and cause even more division.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
how is that even disputable?
in 50 years, our children will laugh at us as to how this was even a debate
much like they will laugh as to how we elected donald trump as president
Of course it’s a debate, in fact it’s likely to result in a net increase in murders in this country. When millions of people feel that their constitutional rights are being taken away what do you think the result is? More or less extremists?Quote:
Originally Posted by blakeis it even a debate that, over time, taking away guns will reduce casualties?Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefish
how is that even disputable?
again, you wouldn't really need to go the stormtrooper route to accomplish this. there are far smarter ways of doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefishOf course it’s a debate, in fact it’s likely to result in a net increase in murders in this country. When millions of people feel that their constitutional rights are being taken away what do you think the result is? More or less extremists?Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
remove the civil liability protections currently in place against gun manufacturers (and no other industries) and see what happens. outlaw the selling or importation (but not ownership) of semi-auto rifles or bullets.
either that or just flood the southern states with mexicans and turn them blue. we're like 10 years from texas being permanently blue as is. are semi-auto rifles the hill you all want to die on?
your call. it's really not a question of "if" but "when". you know this.
I’m not dying on any hill, as I said before I’m not a gun owner. But there are millions of people that are willing to die on that hill because their position is if we let the government take away one constitutional right that will only be the beginning. If only a few people felt that way they could be disregarded in this discussion but they number in the millions. Whether their concern is justified or not is a different discussion but the threat of many of those people becoming extremists to protect their constitutional rights is very real.Quote:
Originally Posted by blakeagain, you wouldn't really need to go the stormtrooper route to accomplish this. there are far smarter ways of doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefish
remove the civil liability protections currently in place against gun manufacturers (and no other industries) and see what happens. outlaw the selling or importation (but not ownership) of semi-auto rifles or bullets.
either that or just flood the southern states with mexicans and turn them blue. we're like 10 years from texas being permanently blue as is. are semi-auto rifles the hill you all want to die on?
your call. it's really not a question of "if" but "when". you know this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefishI’m not dying on any hill, as I said before I’m not a gun owner. But there are millions of people that are willing to die on that hill because their position is if we let the government take away one constitutional right that will only be the being. If only a few people felt that way they could be disregarded in this discussion but they number in the millions. Whether their concern is justified or not is a different discussion but the threat of many of those people becoming extremists to protect their constitutional rights is very real.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
Keep it up 100% facts. Everything you have said so far is what I want to say but am not as educated as you seem to be. My thoughts are written through you. Thank You
i hear you. but with every sandy hook, the amount of people who agree with that mindset goes down.Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefishI’m not dying on any hill, as I said before I’m not a gun owner. But there are millions of people that are willing to die on that hill because their position is if we let the government take away one constitutional right that will only be the beginning. If only a few people felt that way they could be disregarded in this discussion but they number in the millions. Whether their concern is justified or not is a different discussion but the threat of many of those people becoming extremists to protect their constitutional rights is very real.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
increased background checks are a 90-10 issue. even most republicans are good with assault weapons bans. (i'd argue that most people polled consider assault weapons to be any semi-auto rifle, even if that's not technically true.)
you can only resist the will of the people for so long.
From the American Psychiatric Association (APA):
Mental health programs are severely underfunded in this country and access to needed care is challenging for individuals and families. It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness are not violent and far more likely to be victims of violent crime than perpetrators of violence. Rhetoric that argues otherwise will further stigmatize and interfere with people accessing needed treatment. Individuals can also be emboldened to act violently by the public discourse and divisive rhetoric.
I found this interesting.
sah_24: So then they use pistols and hunting rifles then you will want them banned ... you and jimmy are retarded like all liberals
sah you bloviating, blustering buffoon what are you fucking new?
I was prepared to expound on my previous post but I'm pretty sure I'd be wasting my breath.
Better luck with reading comprehension next time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by abrown83The funny thing is you think the knock is possible. Soldiers and police officers who are often AR owners themselves, are going to do this 0.0% of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
its so coge that you would mention this; i remember that PNW sheriff in bundy country sending out an open letter saying he would flatly refuse to enforce any order that violated the 2nd amendment... so yeah, you aint wrong.
time to invest in robotics co's.