would you vote to repeal the 2nd ammendment

[OpportunityCost]

Why are you OK with that? Isn't that unconstitutional? Isn't that the first step on the slippery slope to Obama coming to your house and personally taking away your nail clippers?

Smart mouthing is really going to make that conversation flow. C'mon, be civil.

 

[ataraxia]

Constitutional guarantees are the difference. There is no constitutional guarantee to drive. No, I don't want to keep 18th century laws in place. In what world does a shoulder stock, a bayonet lug, or a front grip handle become 21st century tech? Yet those are the criteria used to determine if something is "an assault weapon".

So you are agreeing that it could potentially be more safe to have more regulations on dangerous instruments and tools. We just shouldn't in the particular case of guns because you don't think it's constitutional. OK. At least we are clear.

 

[ataraxia]

Legal use of firearms is not deadly to anyone but those committing crime on people that are carrying.

Driving a Formula 1 race car around the local elementary school at the speed limit is not deadly to anyone either. So should we get rid of all the laws for what kind of vehicles are considered street legal?

 

[OpportunityCost]

But you were talking about the Republican Party. So which is it?

There have been some things discussed along similar lines but it always gets pushed towards all removal of rights before adjudication. Adjudication must be part of the process, you can't just remove rights without due process. But that is what is being pushed for. What we need to figure out is when an individual is becoming dangerous and how to allow doctors to push for a hearing on competency, but a signature by that doctor shouldn't just instantly remove rights.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Driving a Formula 1 race car around the local elementary school at the speed limit is not deadly to anyone either. So should we get rid of all the laws for what kind of vehicles are considered street legal?

You keep pushing the car analogy as though there are not gun control laws. There are. Quit being disingenuous.

 

[OpportunityCost]

So you are agreeing that it could potentially be more safe to have more regulations on dangerous instruments and tools. We just shouldn't in the particular case of guns because you don't think it's constitutional. OK. At least we are clear.

A literal straw man. I am saying that the way we make those determinations is flawed because the people that want to make them don't know the technology they want to restrict.

 

[Casper]

You are saying that like it's a good thing. Why? What happened to all those fears of the NRA's dreaded "slippery slope"?

I have no issue with the current laws other than their lack of enforcement. The NRA has no influence on my opinion, just so ya know. What I do know is that many are proving that that the slippery slope comment is accurate. That said, it is my firm belief that we are focusing on the wrong thing when it comes to gun violence, but being lazy we ignore the long term solutions and focus on something easier.

 

[Bodi]

Strike one, lie :





Its not about what's needed, its about what is chosen. The citizen gets to decide, not the government.

All you have shown here is that you have poor reading skills... I did not lie (or contradict myself) at all.

 

[Bodi]

Quite simple, 1.25 million people are killed in auto crashes annually. In addition, there are twice as many guns as cars in the US. I also have had dozens of recalls on my cars. I have never had a recall on a gun.

There are approximately 128 million households with cars in the USA. 85% have at least one car. 110 million cars. Say, safely, that half of those have at least two cars, adding 55 million more cars... 165 million cars. So you have 165 million people driving almost every single day. 825 million people driving per week. 42 BILLION people on the roads in a year. Pretty sure my quick math calculations in my head are correct.

How many guns are being used in a year? Not even close... and cars are designed to transport. Guns are designed to kill.

 

[OpportunityCost]

All you have shown here is that you have poor reading skills... I did not lie (or contradict myself) at all.

Good for you, we're done here. You go play games with someone else, I'm not interested.

 

[Bodi]

Good for you, we're done here. You go play games with someone else, I'm not interested.

Words matter... when you use them incorrectly, like you did, it merely shows that discussing the actual issue is a near waste of time.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Words matter... when you use them incorrectly, like you did, it merely shows that discussing the actual issue is a near waste of time.

You have got to be kidding me. Go away.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

 

[CLAX1911]

If you have a society with lots of cars and no drivers' licensing or traffic laws, I promise you plenty can happen to you.

Sure but if you drive a car you drive it on the road with other cars it's important to be able to follow laws regulating traffic because such a thing can get out of hand.

Owning a gun does not work that way.

 

[mrdeltoid]

Please. No one needs anything more than a small handgun to protect themselves.

Korean business owners in L.A. would disagree. They defended themselves with rifles, handguns and shotguns. They had rifles on the rooftops, and they made sure they were seen. It was the only way to deter the rioters. As I've stated before, I have lived through 2 riots in Baltimore. Who are you to decide how I choose to defend my family from harm?

 

[ataraxia]

You keep pushing the car analogy as though there are not gun control laws. There are. Quit being disingenuous.

We may have some regulations, but it is nowhere near enough. These are Potentially extremely dangerous tools, and like any dangerous tool, they need far better regulation and oversight.

There is something clearly different between the United States and the rest of the developed world. This country is the massacre capital of the world. Why? My answer is that it is the absence of adequate regulation in firearms. When just about any crazy person can buy any crazy weapon he/she wants and use it anyway or anywhere they please, it is no different than any crazy person being able to buy any crazy vehicle he/she wants and drive it anywhere they want. The consequences are very predictable.

 

[ataraxia]

Korean business owners in L.A. would disagree. They defended themselves with rifles, handguns and shotguns. They had rifles on the rooftops, and they made sure they were seen. It was the only way to deter the rioters. As I've stated before, I have lived through 2 riots in Baltimore. Who are you to decide how I choose to defend my family from harm?

People have to use weapons in war zones all the time. That does not make them safer places to live.

 

[ataraxia]

A literal straw man. I am saying that the way we make those determinations is flawed because the people that want to make them don't know the technology they want to restrict.

Who knows more about firearms technology than a four-star general?

“I spent a career carrying typically either an M16 or an M4 Carbine. An M4 Carbine fires a .223 caliber round which is 5.56 mm at about 3000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed for that. That’s what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.

We’ve got to take a serious look—I understand everyone’s desire to have whatever they want—but we’ve got to protect our children, we’ve got to protect our police, we’ve got to protect our population. Serious action is necessary. Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges and I just don’t think that’s enough.”
-Gen. Stanley McChrystal

 

[ataraxia]

Sure but if you drive a car you drive it on the road with other cars it's important to be able to follow laws regulating traffic because such a thing can get out of hand.

Owning a gun does not work that way.

It’s not just cars. Any potentially dangerous tool is heavily regulated. There’s a reason for that. I’m not sure why guns are different.

Now if you want to say That firearms should be different because they’re protected by the Constitution, that’s fine. But don’t try to say they make us safer. We just have to accept that we will live in a far more dangerous society, and that’s a price that we are going to have to learn to pay.

 

[mrdeltoid]

People have to use weapons in war zones all the time. That does not make them safer places to live.

They weren't trying to make the city a safer place to live, they were protecting their families and property. There's a reason their stores were spared, and it wasn't because they were gun free zones.

 

[CLAX1911]

It’s not just cars. Any potentially dangerous tool is heavily regulated. There’s a reason for that. I’m not sure why guns are different.

They aren't. There are many regulations on guns

Now if you want to say That firearms should be different because they’re protected by the Constitution, that’s fine.

I didn't say guns are different, they are regulated.

But don’t try to say they make us safer. We just have to accept that we will live in a far more dangerous society, and that’s a price that we are going to have to learn to pay.

I didn't say that I wasn't going to but I could and I could rationalize it as well.

 

[Slavister]

I know wmd means weapon of mass destruction but that could be an airplane a couple gallons of gasoline or a few things you pick up at the hardware store.

As far as an isotope goes no you can't shield it, not one hundred percent. If you're careless thousands of people could die over thousands of years show me a gun that can do that

If I buy a silo with nuke, I don't believe it means anyone would be exposed to anything there. Even for smaller weapons, you'd have to source it for me to prove your claim that there is no shielding.

In any case, if I own a nuke, it does not mean anyone is near it. I may own it out on my field somewhere.

Further, if you are careless with some assault weapons, many people die too. In fact we DO have thousands of people dying from guns but you don't make that an issue for some reason.

because an AR15 doesn't emit radiation that can be deadly to all life for thousands of years. Simply being in the vicinity of one does not present a clear and present danger to your life

Being next to some chemical and bio weapons does not pose any dangers either as I stated.

do your neighbors have the right not to be killed by radiation? Do people have the right to life is that something you would see in the Constitution?

Do they have the right to be killed by guns that you are not careful with? Why is bio or chem weapon any different?

If these chemicals were to mix what would be the result?

If I pulled the trigger what would be the result? Same question, same answer.

 

[Bodi]

You have got to be kidding me. Go away.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

Why would I be kidding you regarding this matter? When you take words out of context then you are doing a disservice to the merits of the debate.

 

[CLAX1911]

If I buy a silo with nuke, I don't believe it means anyone would be exposed to anything there.

good luck getting access to the isotope that is under Federal regulation. Without the isotope all you have is some scrap metal in a hole. Ended isotope is into weapon It's not used exclusively for weaponry.

Even for smaller weapons, you'd have to source it for me to prove your claim that there is no shielding.

no it wouldn't there's no such thing as perfect shielding.

and you'd have to be able to buy the isotope.

In any case, if I own a nuke, it does not mean anyone is near it. I may own it out on my field somewhere.

but it does mean you have to own an isotope and you have to have a special Federal clearance to do that

Further, if you are careless with some assault weapons, many people die too.

That's false. There is no way that an AR-15 would irradiate people. In order to kill many people would that you have to be intending to do that.

they don't just fly around and shoot people that's not how they work.

In fact we DO have thousands of people dying from guns but you don't make that an issue for some reason.

not an issue of gun ownership. we have thousands of people died in traffic every year but I don't think there should be any regulation stopping someone from owning a car.

Being next to some chemical and bio weapons does not pose any dangers either as I stated.

yes it does you stated something that was incorrect and I was correcting you.

Do they have the right to be killed by guns that you are not careful with? Why is bio or chem weapon any different?

Guess your neighbors have the right not to be killed by your guns if you go over there and shoot them you will face prosecution.

and biochemical weapons are different because of the biochemical part. Firearms are not biochemical.

If I pulled the trigger what would be the result? Same question, same answer.

if you pulled the trigger by your pointing gun at somebody it would be criminally negligent homicide you're not allowed to do that anymore then you're allowed to store biochemical weapons in your home.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Why would I be kidding you regarding this matter? When you take words out of context then you are doing a disservice to the merits of the debate.

FFS Bodi, you are saying because SCOTUS has been wrong, EVER, it cant be used to show you are wrong.

If you cant see how much of an intellectually, dishonest, bull**** argument that is, I don't know what I can do to help you see it.

I'm much more willing to take SCOTUS at face value on this than I am you. They do determine what is and isn't Constitutional, whereas you just try to get reactions on an internet board.

You should have quit while you were ahead.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Who knows more about firearms technology than a four-star general?

“I spent a career carrying typically either an M16 or an M4 Carbine. An M4 Carbine fires a .223 caliber round which is 5.56 mm at about 3000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed for that. That’s what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.

We’ve got to take a serious look—I understand everyone’s desire to have whatever they want—but we’ve got to protect our children, we’ve got to protect our police, we’ve got to protect our population. Serious action is necessary. Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges and I just don’t think that’s enough.”
-Gen. Stanley McChrystal

Then pass an amendment. That's what you need to do to make the serious changes you are hinting at. Go for it.