Why Guns Should Be Confiscated[W:730]

[haymarket]

Re: Douchemarket

Yes, and the cow jumped over the moon, too.

:lamo

you simply keep proving my point with each post you make. Thank you.

 

[Vox]

Re: Douchemarket

you simply keep proving my point with each post you make. Thank you.

As do you mine.

My heartfelt thanks to you!!

:cheers:

 

[blackjack50]

Re: Douchemarket

Its recognizing the individuals right to keep and bear arms and the societies right to reasonably regulate anything they feel is both dangerous and a possible public threat to general safety. In between there is common sense.

And by common sense you mean: not based on evidence or due process. Right?

Gun control zombies lol. If we applied the same logic to other rights...I’m betting you would throw a **** fit. Are you even willing to acknowledge that what you claim is “common sense” and “reasonable” is hardly that? It fails to address the root problem. Pretending the issue is “people under 21,” or “assault weapons” or “handguns” or “10 round clips” or “30 round ghost full semis” or whatever. You ARE starting to address the topic when discussing mental health.

But then guess what? You can’t go blundering about into willy nilly rights infringements on the “mentally ill” because you are ignoring due process and not addressing the issue. My sister would qualify as mentally ill. She has anxiety. She is no more a danger than I am. Hell. She wouldn’t hurt anything except a turkey or dove (she hunts them). Not everyone who qualifies as “mentally ill” would or should be qualified as a danger and lose ANY rights without due process.

We need to be rewriting legislation and putting money into research and updating our laws regarding mental health. We need to do it with regards to what qualifies someone as a danger to themselves or others. Given this most recent incident...you would think it would be all anyone would be talking about. We have laws on the books to prevent the mentally unfit from owning firearms. And this guy got reported 39 times. Wtf?

 

[haymarket]

Re: Douchemarket

As do you mine.

My heartfelt thanks to you!!

:cheers:

You first need a point before anyone can help you prove it. The only one so far has been racist support for skewed polling results producing intellectually illegitimate results.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Douchemarket

And by common sense you mean: not based on evidence or due process. Right?

Gun control zombies lol. If we applied the same logic to other rights...I’m betting you would throw a **** fit. Are you even willing to acknowledge that what you claim is “common sense” and “reasonable” is hardly that? It fails to address the root problem. Pretending the issue is “people under 21,” or “assault weapons” or “handguns” or “10 round clips” or “30 round ghost full semis” or whatever. You ARE starting to address the topic when discussing mental health.

But then guess what? You can’t go blundering about into willy nilly rights infringements on the “mentally ill” because you are ignoring due process and not addressing the issue. My sister would qualify as mentally ill. She has anxiety. She is no more a danger than I am. Hell. She wouldn’t hurt anything except a turkey or dove (she hunts them). Not everyone who qualifies as “mentally ill” would or should be qualified as a danger and lose ANY rights without due process.

We need to be rewriting legislation and putting money into research and updating our laws regarding mental health. We need to do it with regards to what qualifies someone as a danger to themselves or others. Given this most recent incident...you would think it would be all anyone would be talking about. We have laws on the books to prevent the mentally unfit from owning firearms. And this guy got reported 39 times. Wtf?

I stand by my post as written. And I suspect the vast vast majority of Americans are right there with me somewhere in between the radical NRA approach and the idea to repeal the Second Amendment. Common sense Americans who have no problem with people owning a gun for protection or hunting but do not want to see military weapons in our society used by anybody other than the military of police.

 

[Vox]

Re: Douchemarket

You first need a point before anyone can help you prove it. The only one so far has been racist support for skewed polling results producing intellectually illegitimate results.

You have done that, not me.

Ponder your pollster.

 

[Vox]

Re: Douchemarket

I stand by my post as written. And I suspect the vast vast majority of Americans are right there with me somewhere in between the radical NRA approach and the idea to repeal the Second Amendment. Common sense Americans who have no problem with people owning a gun for protection or hunting but do not want to see military weapons in our society used by anybody other than the military of police.

You know........if they actually WERE military weapons what you said might make sense!!!

But they're not so you don't.

Keep trying though......you are a source of much amusement.

:mrgreen:

 

[haymarket]

Re: Douchemarket

You have done that, not me.

Ponder your pollster.

That has no rational meaning in the context of our exchange.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Douchemarket

You know........if they actually WERE military weapons what you said might make sense!!!

But they're not so you don't.

Keep trying though......you are a source of much amusement.

:mrgreen:

That makes no sense. I strongly suspect the average American can tell the difference between a rifle used for deer hunting or a pistol used for home protection and an AR15 in less than five seconds. And they know which one belongs in the hands of the military and which one does not belong in citizens hands.

 

[longview]

Re: Douchemarket

I think we should consider that if a person cannot own guns because of mental illness,
they also should not be allowed to vote.
It is a slippery slope when we tray to decide who gets rights that are supposed to be beyond infringement.

 

[Vox]

Re: Douchemarket

That makes no sense. I strongly suspect the average American can tell the difference between a rifle used for deer hunting or a pistol used for home protection and an AR15 in less than five seconds. And they know which one belongs in the hands of the military and which one does not belong in citizens hands.

Possibilities:

1. You are actually so dumb that you don't know that the AR-15 is semi-automatic only and the M-16 is capable of fully automatic function.

Or:

2: You are actually so dumb that you don't know that the AR-15 is semi-automatic only and the M-16 is capable of fully automatic function.

I'm betting on........

:mrgreen:

 

[haymarket]

Re: Douchemarket

Possibilities:

1. You are actually so dumb that you don't know that the AR-15 is semi-automatic only and the M-16 is capable of fully automatic function.

Or:

2: You are actually so dumb that you don't know that the AR-15 is semi-automatic only and the M-16 is capable of fully automatic function.

Thats really weird since I never brought up a M16. And insulting me does not change that.

In the world you live in... is it possible - that two firearms can both be seen as military weapons and not simply one? Or is it too much of a stretch for you to attempt?

 

[Vox]

Re: Douchemarket

I think we should consider that if a person cannot own guns because of mental illness,
they also should not be allowed to vote.
It is a slippery slope when we tray to decide who gets rights that are supposed to be beyond infringement.

Good idea.

Then........to prove eligibility to vote........we could just bring our gun to the polling place.

:iloveyou:

 

[Vox]

Re: Douchemarket

Thats really weird since I never brought up a M16. And insulting me does not change that.

In the world you live in... is it possible - that two firearms can both be seen as military weapons and not simply one? Or is it too much of a stretch for you to attempt?

Oh, ANY weapon can be SEEN as a military weapon.

If you're dumb enough a scissors can be seen as a military weapon.

Ponder that for a decade or so and get back to me.

:2dancing:

 

[haymarket]

Re: Douchemarket

Oh, ANY weapon can be SEEN as a military weapon.

If you're dumb enough a scissors can be seen as a military weapon.

You are the only person in 68 years I have ever heard try to justify a claim a pair of scissors is a military weapon. That is some category you just put yourself in.

 

[Vox]

Re: Douchemarket

You are the only person in 68 years I have ever heard try to justify a claim a pair of scissors is a military weapon. That is some category you just put yourself in.

Snip snip and semper fi.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Douchemarket

Snip snip and semper fi.

hail hail Freedonia.

 

[blackjack50]

Re: Douchemarket

I stand by my post as written. And I suspect the vast vast majority of Americans are right there with me somewhere in between the radical NRA approach and the idea to repeal the Second Amendment. Common sense Americans who have no problem with people owning a gun for protection or hunting but do not want to see military weapons in our society used by anybody other than the military of police.

The issue here is that the definition of what you call “military or police” use would include weapons for protection and hunting. We are talking about something as simple as a pump action shotgun being banned because some people “feel” that it isn’t right for protection. Even though they don’t understand the topic. They haven’t taken classes. They don’t have first hand experience. They haven’t even taken unarmed self defense classes. And you expect us to do anything other than dismiss them outright like you have dismissed the NRA outright? At least the NRA has access to ACTUAL experts on the topic of what a force on force encounter entails.

The reality here, and let’s not pretend you aren’t aware of this, is that there is no REAL middle ground. Because those people who say “common sense” gun control won’t stop with banning ar15s. They will always push for MORE control. There is no line that says enough is enough.

 

[Casper]

Re: Douchemarket

The issue here is that the definition of what you call “military or police” use would include weapons for protection and hunting. We are talking about something as simple as a pump action shotgun being banned because some people “feel” that it isn’t right for protection. Even though they don’t understand the topic. They haven’t taken classes. They don’t have first hand experience. They haven’t even taken unarmed self defense classes. And you expect us to do anything other than dismiss them outright like you have dismissed the NRA outright? At least the NRA has access to ACTUAL experts on the topic of what a force on force encounter entails.

The reality here, and let’s not pretend you aren’t aware of this, is that there is no REAL middle ground. Because those people who say “common sense” gun control won’t stop with banning ar15s. They will always push for MORE control. There is no line that says enough is enough.

Correct, once ARs would be banned it would finally dawn on them that handguns are the weapon of choice among criminals so once again they take away more firearms from honest citizens, and after that it would be shotguns , by then anyone willing to obey their insanity would be completely defenseless, and that is the ultimate goal no matter how many times they deny it. Best to not give in the their first request and just enforce the laws that are on the books already and they can stomp their feet and whine like little girls all they want, after all that is their Right.

 

[Vox]

Re: Douchemarket

There is no line that says enough is enough.

I kinda figure we're there.

Got to that line a long time ago.

:thumbs:

 

[blackjack50]

Re: Douchemarket

Correct, once ARs would be banned it would finally dawn on them that handguns are the weapon of choice among criminals so once again they take away more firearms from honest citizens, and after that it would be shotguns , by then anyone willing to obey their insanity would be completely defenseless, and that is the ultimate goal no matter how many times they deny it. Best to not give in the their first request and just enforce the laws that are on the books already and they can stomp their feet and whine like little girls all they want, after all that is their Right.

It is like they expect us to believe them when they say “we don’t want to ban all guns. Just these guns.”

 

[Casper]

Re: Douchemarket

It is like they expect us to believe them when they say “we don’t want to ban all guns. Just these guns.”

And these, and these, and oh yeah, all of those................

 

[blackjack50]

Re: Douchemarket

I kinda figure we're there.

Got to that line a long time ago.

:thumbs:

I meant the line of what gun control advocates believe is enough “gun control.”

 

[haymarket]

Re: Douchemarket

The issue here is that the definition of what you call “military or police” use would include weapons for protection and hunting. We are talking about something as simple as a pump action shotgun being banned because some people “feel” that it isn’t right for protection. Even though they don’t understand the topic. They haven’t taken classes. They don’t have first hand experience. They haven’t even taken unarmed self defense classes. And you expect us to do anything other than dismiss them outright like you have dismissed the NRA outright? At least the NRA has access to ACTUAL experts on the topic of what a force on force encounter entails.

The reality here, and let’s not pretend you aren’t aware of this, is that there is no REAL middle ground. Because those people who say “common sense” gun control won’t stop with banning ar15s. They will always push for MORE control. There is no line that says enough is enough.

You just attempted to do what NRA apologists like to do and that is make this about technical knowledge gun nuts tend to have that average people tend not to have. You want to play that supposed trump card and win the argument because then the other side cannot argue the technical nonsense with you.

Not working.

I may have lived my entire 68 years in the Detroit area but i have no idea how a car works nor do I care to know anything about the mechanics or technology of it. I get in, turn it on and I drive it to where I want to go. But despite my abysmal technical ignorance, I will am a citizen and can have an opinion and a say about the laws that govern automobiles and driving and all that goes with it and my vote and my opinion is worth the same as any other citizen no matter if we cannot tell a real mustang from the ford variety.

So stop with the ruse.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Re: Why Guns Should Be Confiscated

One overlooked important detail: "due process"

By loosing the ability to exercise a right lawfully through due process, that does not turn a right into a privilege.

A right may not be abridged. I do agree with due process, but penalties have limits. As it stands you can be convicted of a felony and lose your right bear arms forever. So all what one needs to do is make more crimes a felony. Unrealistic? Perhaps, but dont underestimate the drive of the anti gun movement. The felony gun ban opens the door to similar legislation. I mean with due process we could lose all our rights, thats how it happens.