You can’t ban human nature

[Loulit01]

When a dog steps on a rifle in the back seat with one in the chamber, and kills the guy in the passenger seat, it's the dumbasses right.

You put a dog in the back seat with a loaded rifle? Suicidal much?

 

[CLAX1911]

They do?

Some of them do yes they will say so on this forum.

No I agree restricting guns is not the same thing his Banning them but if you want to infringe on this right you need to have a damn good reason. And no because sometimes people kill each other with guns is not a damn good reason.

 

[ataraxia]

Over 100 years ago, progressives convinced the country that banning alcohol would solve the problem of drunkenness. Needless to say, it became one of the biggest policy failures in U.S. history. Today, they want to ban guns - just like they once banned alcohol. Does anybody really think the results would be any different?

Prohibition didn’t stop drinking. It created black markets, built up organized crime, and turned millions of ordinary Americans into criminals. Now, with guns, they think a ban will stop violence - or “gun violence,” as they put it. But just like booze, the demand won’t vanish, it’ll just go underground.

And let’s not pretend that banning one specific weapon means a murderer suddenly decides not to murder. The intent stays, while the method shifts to whatever it takes to fulfill the intent.

Soooo. Any problems with lifting regulations on nukes? Put them on sale at Walmart and arrest people only AFTER they do something bad?

It why even do that? The free market key will take care of it all, right?

 

[ataraxia]

Because child self-harm is only a thing because of guns.

I say leave nuclear ordnances in the toy chest.

 

[CaughtInThe]

I think Trump is ****ing up so bad that MAGAs and fake Libertarians are gonna continue trying to make guns the topic of discussion.

And part of it is because Trump's agenda hurts MAGAs/fake Libertarians and they're just now figuring that out.

It's a coping mechanism.

 

[BitterPill]

You put a dog in the back seat with a loaded rifle? Suicidal much?

Some of us have smart dogs, and only dogs with mentally deranged lib-prog owners would ignore basic gun safety.

Idiots one and all.

MAGA.

 

[RF667799]

I think Trump is ****ing up so bad that MAGAs and fake Libertarians are gonna continue trying to make guns the topic of discussion.

Yeah nobody talked about guns before.

And part of it is because Trump's agenda hurts MAGAs/fake Libertarians and they're just now figuring that out.

It's a coping mechanism.

 

[The Brad Dad]

And let’s not pretend that banning one specific weapon means a murderer suddenly decides not to murder. The intent stays, while the method shifts to whatever it takes to fulfill the intent.

Right, if someone wants to murder a bunch of people who are we to make it difficult to pursue the Ammo American’s happiness.. We must, however, legislate drag queens.

 

[The Brad Dad]

That's a parenting problem. How about a license to bear kids if you're so concerned?

You would regulate people before guns?

 

[NJBob]

No I agree restricting guns is not the same thing his Banning them but if you want to infringe on this right you need to have a damn good reason. And no because sometimes people kill each other with guns is not a damn good reason.

Would the word regulate be easier for you to accept?

 

[The Brad Dad]

Some of them do yes they will say so on this forum.

No I agree restricting guns is not the same thing his Banning them but if you want to infringe on this right you need to have a damn good reason. And no because sometimes people kill each other with guns is not a damn good reason.

People murdering each other is a pretty good reason.

 

[RF667799]

People murdering each other is a pretty good reason.

What about THE CHILDREN?

Anytime in the history of our country when adults want to control the behavior of other adults that the constitution doesn’t allow for, they invoke THE CHILDREN.

 

[stealthycat]

alcohol isn't a constitutional right


as for human nature .... if we had 50,000 violent people in the USA with killing tendencies .... and we banned every gun in the USA today ?

there would still be 50,000 violent people with killing tendencies and a populace that has no guns to protect themselves. That's Democrats/liberals/anti-gun views, they WANT all the violent people

get rid of those violent people is the solution

 

[j brown's body]

I have a hard time accepting the idea that owning one specific product is a human right. The belief being so extreme that the regulation of speech, which is essential to a free democracy is more acceptable to the proponents of this idea than the regulation of this particular product.

 

[j brown's body]

alcohol isn't a constitutional right


as for human nature .... if we had 50,000 violent people in the USA with killing tendencies .... and we banned every gun in the USA today ?

there would still be 50,000 violent people with killing tendencies and a populace that has no guns to protect themselves. That's Democrats/liberals/anti-gun views, they WANT all the violent people

get rid of those violent people is the solution

A dog will help with that. We had a string of burglaries in our neighborhood a couple of times, and without fail, they skipped every house that owned a dog.

Unfortunately, most murders happen to family members or acquaintances. There might be a better way to avoid this than becoming a killer yourself.

 

[aociswundumho]

alcohol isn't a constitutional right

You’re right, alcohol isn’t in the constitution. That’s why it took a constitutional amendment to ban it. Because at the end of the day, putting what you want into your own body is as basic a human right as any other, just like defending your life and property. The constitution doesn’t grant rights, it recognizes and (hopefully) protects them.

Human nature doesn’t care about legal classifications. The point is that banning something with high demand and deep cultural roots creates black markets, enriches criminals, and still fails to eliminate the behavior.

 

[The Brad Dad]

What about THE CHILDREN?

What about them? Are they bullet resistant? Do those bulletproof backpacks and shooter drills work?

 

[RF667799]

What about them? Are they bullet resistant? Do those bulletproof backpacks and shooter drills work?

Anytime in the history of our country when adults want to control the behavior of other adults that the constitution doesn’t allow for, they invoke THE CHILDREN.

 

[The Brad Dad]

@RF667799 I tried replying to your last post but the board software is telling me there’s literally NOTHING to quote ROFLMAO

 

[RF667799]

@RF667799 I tried replying to your last post but the board software is telling me there’s literally NOTHING to quote ROFLMAO

Well here. Let me help.

"Anytime in the history of our country when adults want to control the behavior of other adults that the constitution doesn’t allow for, they invoke THE CHILDREN."- The Brad Dad

 

[The Brad Dad]

Well here. Let me help.

"Anytime in the history of our country when adults want to control the behavior of other adults that the constitution doesn’t allow for, they invoke THE CHILDREN."- The Brad Dad

Literally the website said “He has no argument’ ROFLMAO

 

[RF667799]

Literally the website said “He has no argument’ ROFLMAO

Define the term "literally".

 

[The Brad Dad]

Define the term "literally".

I tried to respond to your post, and the website said “nothing is there” LOLOLOL

 

[OrphanSlug]

This conversation is playing out in an extremely predictable way.

Several things can all be true at the same time.

We can, with ease, point out that the US has a terrible but also well documented history of the government saying no to something only to find that criminal enterprise steps in with supply to handle the demand for that very something. It just does not go away entirely, so the question comes down to semantics on how much impact these efforts have positive and negative. The lesson being legal, social, economic constructs no matter how formed are not a catch all to solve all behavioral faults we observe in a society. Some help more than others.

This was proven time and time again. Prohibition of alcohol, how we regulated or outlawed certain drugs, certain tabacco regulations, even dealing with things like pornography or prostitution all had some degree of impact on criminal enterprise finding new latitude for expansion and control. I would argue how we handled the so called 'war on drugs' kickstarted the largest global criminal enterprise seen since the old school days of prohibition of alcohol.

The socioeconomic results are obvious, it is no surprise that the US leads the planet in all the following categories. Number of arrests per year, number of incarcerated people per capita, total number of prisoners, most laws on the books, and largest number of new laws and/or regulations annually. The number twos in most of these categories are not even close, perhaps the last one on laws per year being the exception. Now, some of that is misleading, but not near enough to disprove the point that we through various legal means to take something away cause ourselves a good deal of headache.

The emotional charged issue of guns notwithstanding, kids in schools being gunned down by lunatics, we pit the very extreme club of the gun ban group against the NRA types.

Then we wonder why little changes, and why we really do not debate the predictable outcome of going too far with regulating something with such demand. Criminal enterprise will step up... again... and those that want them will obtain them to various degrees of legal, social, and economic consequence. We are already on our way to arguably a police state, everyone is a suspect, and arrest as many as possible mentality so what do you think will happen if we go too far with gun regulations?

History already tells us, in this nation alone, I am curious who is willing to acknowledge that.

 

[Grand Mal]

I didn't say it didn't happen.

You said I made it up.

What a bizarre response.