Defend your right to own a car.

[Sinfix_15]

Still waiting on Blank's tips to prevent rape without a gun.

[.blank cd]

Still waiting on Blank's tips to prevent rape without a gun.

Piss on yourself. Duh

[Sinfix_15]

Piss on yourself. Duh

Why are you embarrassed of your real answer?


The anti-gun lobby are suggesting women piss on themselves, shit on themselves, tell their attacker theyre on their period, tell them they have an STD............

basically anything that would "turn off" the attacker..... what's next? will they stoop as low as to tell women to be unattractive or fat? tell them to carry around a picture of Donald Trump to show their potential rapist in hopes that he cant get it up? The anti-gun approach to rape prevention is summed up as "make them not want to fuck you"

[Elbow]

Piss on yourself. Duh

I'd like to hear as well honestly.

[Elbow]

Why are you embarrassed of your real answer?


The anti-gun lobby are suggesting women piss on themselves, shit on themselves, tell their attacker theyre on their period, tell them they have an STD............

basically anything that would "turn off" the attacker..... what's next? will they stoop as low as to tell women to be unattractive or fat? tell them to carry around a picture of Donald Trump to show their potential rapist in hopes that he cant get it up? The anti-gun approach to rape prevention is summed up as "make them not want to fuck you"

Why not pepper spray? Taser? Knife? Or any other self defense weapon?

[.blank cd]

Did we all forget about hand to hand combat?

[Elbow]

Did we all forget about hand to hand combat?

You taught hand to hand combat?

Nobody forgot, but if I were a girl the goal would be distance between myself and my attacker.

[Sinfix_15]

Why not pepper spray? Taser? Knife? Or any other self defense weapon?

I'm gonna hold out a little longer for Blank's response before getting into the effectiveness of other means of self defense.

[Sinfix_15]

Did we all forget about hand to hand combat?

Do you think your wife could fight off a grown man in hand to hand combat?

[Sinfix_15]

Why not pepper spray? Taser? Knife? Or any other self defense weapon?

Each has its pros and cons..... i just dont want guns removed from available options. If you chose a taser over a gun, thats fine.

Pepper spray has an area of effect and isnt that effective to begin with. Good chance the effects of the spray would effect both the man and the woman.
The tasers that do not shoot projectiles are difficult to use and could be defended, the ones that do shoot projectiles only shoot once. So if you miss, you're screwed.
Knives are only as effective as the person holding it, i could fight off an unskilled woman with a knife.

[.blank cd]

Do you think your wife could fight off a grown man in hand to hand combat?
Absolutely. With incredible effectiveness.

[Sinfix_15]

Absolutely. With incredible effectiveness.

Willing to put your money where your mouth is?

I'll wager that you, a grown man, cannot demonstrate a rape prevention technique on a normal guy like myself. I will attempt to do nothing more than hold you down against your will. Even though in a real world situation, your wife would be punched, kicked or struck with a objects..... you have the handicap of not having any physical striking to deal with. Just you preventing yourself from being subdued on the ground. If your technique involves the use of a knife or weapon, we will substitute that with a pencil, if you can pull a pencil out of your pocket and touch me with it, you win, game over.

[Elbow]

Each has its pros and cons..... i just dont want guns removed from available options. If you chose a taser over a gun, thats fine.

Pepper spray has an area of effect and isnt that effective to begin with. Good chance the effects of the spray would effect both the man and the woman.
The tasers that do not shoot projectiles are difficult to use and could be defended, the ones that do shoot projectiles only shoot once. So if you miss, you're screwed.
Knives are only as effective as the person holding it, i could fight off an unskilled woman with a knife.

I don't think they should replace the option of a gun but they seem better than pissing yourself or saying you have AIDS.

[.blank cd]

Willing to put your money where your mouth is?

I'll wager that you, a grown man, cannot demonstrate a rape prevention technique on a normal guy like myself. I will attempt to do nothing more than hold you down against your will. Even though in a real world situation, your wife would be punched, kicked or struck with a objects..... you have the handicap of not having any physical striking to deal with. Just you preventing yourself from being subdued on the ground. If your technique involves the use of a knife or weapon, we will substitute that with a pencil, if you can pull a pencil out of your pocket and touch me with it, you win, game over.

That's unfair to you. I weigh 100lbs more than she does

[Sinfix_15]

I'm a martial arts enthusiasts, love everything about every type of combat. I also encouraged my girl to take up training as a means of self defense. It shouldnt be viewed as the only means of self defense.

A person who may potentially try to rape your wife may not always look like this...........
http://a1.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/76/3172be4d6d60451288e4685745ccb84a/l.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

That's unfair to you. I weigh 100lbs more than she does

My reasoning is that when it's over you will fully recognize how helpless your wife would have been in your shoes. I wouldnt offer to challenge your wife.... that would be disrespectful.

[Sinfix_15]

could your wife fight off this guy?
http://www.vegasnews.com/wp-content/uploads/ben-roethlisberger-at-tao-588.jpg

[.blank cd]

It shouldnt be viewed as the only means of self defense.
Why not? You think you'd have an advantage carrying a pistol?

[Sinfix_15]

by all means...... reveal the details of this self defense strategy for women....... worried i will poke holes in it?

[Sinfix_15]

Why not? You think you'd have an advantage carrying a pistol?

a pistol is intimidating. If you wife reveals a pistol.... most likely whoever seeks to attack her will retreat. Even if your wife is a samurai warrior ninja, her presence will not prevent an attack. Once the attack begins..... your wife's life is at the risk of her ability, which may or may not be enough.

[.blank cd]

I wouldnt offer to challenge your wife.... that would be disrespectful.disrespectful to whom?


could your wife fight off this guy?she could slow him down enough to make a getaway. Yes.

[Sinfix_15]

So, lets say your girl carries a knife and youve given her some instruction on using it.......

If your wife pulls a knife out instantly.... that's no guarantee that she will be able to fight off her attacker and not only that, being engaged might provoke the attacker to kill or severely injure her.

Lets say you told your wife to appear weak until an opportune moment to sneak in a knife attack when the guy doesnt expect it, like when hes pulling his pants down or something like that.... what if hes holding her down on her stomach or pins her arms. You think a woman is going to be crafty enough to fatally stab someone while laying on her stomach with someone on top of her? even if she successfully stabs them, if it isnt fatal, he may kill her to retaliate.

What if he doesnt just attempt to hold her down and rape her, what if in the process of holding her down he's violent and knocks her out? that takes the surprise option away....



so, seriously.... present your ideas to be critiqued, if theyre good ideas then theyre good ideas....

[Sinfix_15]

disrespectful to whom?

she could slow him down enough to make a getaway. Yes.

Both of you, i wouldnt insult anyone by challenging their wife to anything like that. Even if she was a navy seal or whatever, still rude.


tell me how then?

[.blank cd]

She doesn't carry a knife. Or pepper spray. Or a gun.

[Sinfix_15]

She doesn't carry a knife. Or pepper spray. Or a gun.

So you arm your woman with nothing more than her physical ability?

[.blank cd]

If she wanted any of that stuff, she is more than welcome to get it. She hasn't yet.

[Elbow]

The world is ending, I'm with Sinfix on this one.

[.blank cd]

The world is ending, I'm with Sinfix on this one.

So be it. Lol

[Sinfix_15]

As long as this is your wife blank, she's safe................... as long as her attacker doesnt have a weapon.
http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/001/692/799/Ronda-Rousey_display_image.jpg?1324233438

[.blank cd]

As long as this is your wife blank, she's safe................... as long as her attacker doesnt have a weapon.
http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/001/692/799/Ronda-Rousey_display_image.jpg?1324233438

No, but she does look like a girl I once messed around with a while back.

[Sinfix_15]

Black conservatives: Gun control has 'racist' roots [VIDEO] | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/22/black-conservatives-gun-control-has-racist-roots-video/)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BDxKNjZCcAAd84H.jpg:large

[Sinfix_15]

Dear Veterans, thanx for your service, but you can no longer enjoy the freedom you risked your lives for.
Signed - Obama

Obama Deems American Veterans Unfit To Own Firearms - The Free Patriot (http://freepatriot.org/2013/02/23/obama-deems-american-veterans-unfit-to-own-firearms/)

[Echonova]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jafkVM-jnbE

[BanginJimmy]

That video perfectly highlights why shotguns without a butt stock are moronic. Biden is absolutely correct in that a shotgun is a better home defense weapon than an AR.

[.blank cd]

One of my ex girlfriends got all "Neo-conservative" on me and posted this video in her Facebook wall just today and called Biden un-qualified and un-American and what not. After I asked a series of questions, I got to the root of the issue. I asked her "so, to you, does easier mean less recoil?" Even through Facebook I could see the "ahhhhhhhhh" moment and the hamster wheel start turning when she stopped responding.

[BanginJimmy]

I will say that, without a doubt, Biden is an idiot, but anyone that thinks an amateur with an AR is a good choice for home defense is even dumber than Biden is.

[Echonova]

^^^ I agree with all of the above, I have a 12ga for the house and my wife is more than capable using it.



I just thought is was funny.

[BanginJimmy]

^^^ I agree with all of the above, I have a 12ga for the house and my wife is more than capable using it.



I just thought is was funny.

Later this year I am going to be in the market for either a rifle or shotgun. I havent decided which way I am going yet.

Looked at a Remington 700 today and would absolutely love to get into long range shooting. I would really like a shotgun for the house though.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

[On_Her_Face]

I mean honestly a 20 gauge will do the job too... or some variant of the judge (harder to aim, needs more training than a long gun).

[Sinfix_15]

Later this year I am going to be in the market for either a rifle or shotgun. I havent decided which way I am going yet.

Looked at a Remington 700 today and would absolutely love to get into long range shooting. I would really like a shotgun for the house though.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

for your shotgun, rem 870 is the way to go.

http://store.magpul.com/images/uploads/165_1031_popup.jpg

[Echonova]

I just have the old 9-shot Mossberg 500. Has never failed to cycle or fire once after hundreds and hundreds (and more hundreds) of shells.


http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x249/Echonova1/089_zpsd98b5b6d.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

The safety on top drives me nuts.

[Echonova]

http://i1084.photobucket.com/albums/j402/Echonova2/541539_10151247369451442_1613416596_n_zps4de5ac1b. jpg

[Echonova]

http://i1084.photobucket.com/albums/j402/Echonova2/esuhy6ut_zps3e16ff20.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

watching gun control hearing on cspan, senator Grassley just compared banning assault rifles to banning cars that were capable of exceeding 55 mph.

[Sinfix_15]

God, if you're listening...... please make Dianne Feinstein have a stroke. Thank you. Amen.

[Elbow]

watching gun control hearing on cspan, senator Grassley just compared banning assault rifles to banning cars that were capable of exceeding 55 mph.

So with that we can assume that Grassley should not stay in office for being about as bright as night.

[Sinfix_15]

So with that we can assume that Grassley should not stay in office for being about as bright as night.

You should be thankful that someone is attempting to talk sense into the left wing radicals and defend your freedoms. You've made it more than clear that you're too soft to do so. You eat whatever the government puts on your plate.

[Elbow]

You should be thankful that someone is attempting to talk sense into the left wing radicals and defend your freedoms. You've made it more than clear that you're too soft to do so. You eat whatever the government puts on your plate.

I'm too soft?

....lol You don't even know me, I stand up for what I believe.

[Sinfix_15]

I'm too soft?

....lol You don't even know me, I stand up for what I believe.

You stand up for what you believe in but sit down when your government seeks to strip you of your right to stand up for anything.

[.blank cd]

You stand up for what you believe in but sit down when your government seeks to strip you of your right to stand up for anything.

I believe he's sitting down because he knows his government isnt seeking to strip him of anything.

[Sinfix_15]

I believe he's sitting down because he knows his government isnt seeking to strip him of anything.

You're a moron.

[.blank cd]

You're a moron.

...Says you

[Sinfix_15]

...Says you

You either do not think owning a firearm to defend yourself is a right or do not think anyone is trying to remove your ability to own firearms. Either way, you are a moron. Just another sheep in the growing flock of democrats.

[.blank cd]

You either do not think owning a firearm to defend yourself is a right or do not think anyone is trying to remove your ability to own firearms. Either way, you are a moron. Just another sheep in the growing flock of democrats.

So if I do not think anyone is trying to remove my ability to own firearms, and since, indeed, no one is trying to remove my ability to own firearms, then what does that make me?

[Elbow]

You stand up for what you believe in but sit down when your government seeks to strip you of your right to stand up for anything.

Seems like you're speaking of firearms.

Let me make it easy, I have the right to bear arms. It doesn't specify what weapons I have a right to. I feel no threat from the government at this time, nor do I feel that they're stripping me of any rights.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I'm sorry but banning assault weapons does not break this right, which I'm sure is the point you're making. It simply sucks, but doesn't effect our rights or break the constitution. If they start literally speaking of banning all guns, then get back to me.

I'm curious though, aside from posting on Import Atlanta, what are you doing that makes you so hardcore in this matter but makes me so weak?

[Sinfix_15]

So if I do not think anyone is trying to remove my ability to own firearms, and since, indeed, no one is trying to remove my ability to own firearms, then what does that make me?

A delusional moron.

[Sinfix_15]

Seems like you're speaking of firearms.

Let me make it easy, I have the right to bear arms. It doesn't specify what weapons I have a right to. I feel no threat from the government at this time, nor do I feel that they're stripping me of any rights.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I'm sorry but banning assault weapons does not break this right, which I'm sure is the point you're making. It simply sucks, but doesn't effect our rights or break the constitution. If they start literally speaking of banning all guns, then get back to me.

I'm curious though, aside from posting on Import Atlanta, what are you doing that makes you so hardcore in this matter but makes me so weak?

Banning "assault weapons" is stripping you of one of your rights, you're just too stupid to realize it.



Theoretically speaking, if/when they did start talking about banning all guns, what would you suggest we do?

Disguising themselves as anti-gun violence, they seek to strip people of a gun used in less than 1% of criminal activity. It's no coincidence at all that the guns they seek to strip you of 1st are the guns that would prevent them from coming for the rest.

[Elbow]

Banning "assault weapons" is stripping you of one of your rights, you're just too stupid to realize it.



Theoretically speaking, if/when they did start talking about banning all guns, what would you suggest we do?

I completely disagree. I don't have a right to own assault weapons, I have a right to bear arms, it doesn't specify what weapons, how many bullets, or anything else. You can't tell me how that's stripping me of a right so I guess you're just too stupid to form a legitimate argument.

If the government literally said all weapons must be turned over? I would suggest we fight until the last man is standing. That won't ever happen though, no politician is stupid enough to think there wouldn't be a civil war if that really happened.

[Sinfix_15]

I completely disagree. I don't have a right to own assault weapons, I have a right to bear arms, it doesn't specify what weapons, how many bullets, or anything else. You can't tell me how that's stripping me of a right so I guess you're just too stupid to form a legitimate argument.

If the government literally said all weapons must be turned over? I would suggest we fight until the last man is standing. That won't ever happen though, no politician is stupid enough to think there wouldn't be a civil war if that really happened.

Ok, so if the government allowed you to have beanbag shotguns..... they didnt strip you of your right to bear arms. They can "limit" as they see fit.

Good answer..... "fight until the last man standing"... is what most people would say. In the event it came to a point where people had to "fight until the last man standing"..... what type of gun would you chose to defend yourself?

Theyre not seeking to ban guns used in crime, guns used by criminals...... theyre seeking to ban the gun that you would pick up if they ever decided to come take your guns.

[Elbow]

Ok, so if the government allowed you to have beanbag shotguns..... they didnt strip you of your right to bear arms. They can "limit" as they see fit.

Good answer..... "fight until the last man standing"... is what most people would say. In the event it came to a point where people had to "fight until the last man standing"..... what type of gun would you chose to defend yourself?

There is no threat to the banning of guns, all of this gun talk lately goes right to assault weapons, is it a door for some politicians to try more? Maybe. However, I am not being stripped of my rights by any means. Stop using such stupid comparisons in debates.

Whatever I had available.

[Sinfix_15]

There is no threat to the banning of guns, all of this gun talk lately goes right to assault weapons, is it a door for some politicians to try more? Maybe. However, I am not being stripped of my rights by any means. Stop using such stupid comparisons in debates.

Whatever I had available.

So you realize that it may be a doorway for future gun control. Seeing as how "assault weapons" are used in less than 1% of crimes, what justification can you offer for banning them?

Would the absence of "assault weapons" make it more or less difficult for total gun control to happen?

If you dont think the proposed gun control legislation removes you of your rights, then you are completely brainwashed by the left.

If they dont feel they need justification for assault weapons, what makes you think theyll offer justification for anything else?

[Sinfix_15]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zzqkbRitzfY

[Elbow]

So you realize that it may be a doorway for future gun control. Seeing as how "assault weapons" are used in less than 1% of crimes, what justification can you offer for banning them?

Would the absence of "assault weapons" make it more or less difficult for total gun control to happen?

If you dont think the proposed gun control legislation removes you of your rights, then you are completely brainwashed by the left.

It's really not hard to figure it out.

Unless they ban guns, they haven't stripped me of my rights.

Just because some politicians or some people may think banning assault weapons can help ban all weapons doesn't mean all do or it would ever happen. I don't even think banning assault weapons would make it easier personally. I think the only thing it really offers is A. getting rid of assault weapons and B. pushing gun violence into the media and allowing some people to relate assault weapons to any gun and agreeing with other limitations for example magazine size.

What justification can I offer? None, because you know that I don't agree with it, but disagreeing with something and thinking it sucks is hardly being stripped of any constitutional right. I can still buy a gun, with real bullets. Even if I can only have five bullets it's still not stripping me of any rights, anyone that says that just has a made up definition of the rights in their head.

That's where I stand and I'm done. lol

[Sinfix_15]

It's really not hard to figure it out.

Unless they ban guns, they haven't stripped me of my rights.

Just because some politicians or some people may think banning assault weapons can help ban all weapons doesn't mean all do or it would ever happen. I don't even think banning assault weapons would make it easier personally. I think the only thing it really offers is A. getting rid of assault weapons and B. pushing gun violence into the media and allowing some people to relate assault weapons to any gun and agreeing with other limitations for example magazine size.

What justification can I offer? None, because you know that I don't agree with it, but disagreeing with something and thinking it sucks is hardly being stripped of any constitutional right. I can still buy a gun, with real bullets. Even if I can only have five bullets it's still not stripping me of any rights, anyone that says that just has a made up definition of the rights in their head.

That's where I stand and I'm done. lol

Ok, so if the government bans everything but single shot muzzle loaders, we're good? Rights fully intact.

[Sinfix_15]

Like i said to begin with.....

you eat whatever the government puts on your plate.

[.blank cd]

What Sinfix fails to realize is:

1) Assult weapons were previously banned, and during that ban, I could previously acquire them

2) Lawmakers make laws for OTHER reasons than what you may think is the obvious.

C) In any case, Simon is right. Even if they passed an assault weapons ban tomorrow, it still wouldn't have shit to do with your 2nd amendment rights, and there are already Supreme Court decisions that back this up.

[Sinfix_15]

What Sinfix fails to realize is:

1) Assult weapons were previously banned, and during that ban, I could previously acquire them

2) Lawmakers make laws for OTHER reasons than what you may think is the obvious.

C) In any case, Simon is right. Even if they passed an assault weapons ban tomorrow, it still wouldn't have shit to do with your 2nd amendment rights, and there are already Supreme Court decisions that back this up.

Ok, so you're saying....

1.) Wasting time passing unenforceable laws that we shouldnt care about since they cant be enforced. (in theory)
2.) We should trust our government and allow for the justification of said laws to be determined behind closed doors.

either way, thank you giving me further clarification that i pegged you correctly with my initial observation.

[bu villain]

It's no coincidence at all that the guns they seek to strip you of 1st are the guns that would prevent them from coming for the rest.

Why would assault rifles prevent them from coming for the rest any more than other guns? Most of the pro-gun people I hear have been saying that assault weapons are no more deadly than other weapons. Pardon my ignorance but I keep hearing mixed messages. Are assault weapons more deadly or not?

[Sinfix_15]

Why would assault rifles prevent them from coming for the rest any more than other guns? Most of the pro-gun people I hear have been saying that assault weapons are no more deadly than other weapons. Pardon my ignorance but I keep hearing mixed messages. Are assault weapons more deadly or not?

A gun is a tool, like a hammer. Picking up a hammer doesnt make me a carpenter. Picking up a gun doesnt make me a murderer.

"assault rifles" are more effective tools. There are approximately 4 million AR15s in the US. That's 1 type of rifle alone adding up to 4 million. For comparison, our military has about 600k active duty. Banning assault rifles is a power reach and nothing more. During arguably the biggest financial crisis in american history, our government primary agenda is gun control. The government keeps telling you that it's gonna be nothing but sunshine tomorrow............ as they board up their windows and put on their rain coats.

[bu villain]

"assault rifles" are more effective tools.

A bit long winded but thanks for answering the question.

[Sinfix_15]

A bit long winded but thanks for answering the question.

some point to be derived from your question?

[bu villain]

some point to be derived from your question?

Nope, some questions are just for personal knowledge. I know that's unusual in this forum as it seems many on here already know everything there is to know about everything.

[.blank cd]

Ok, so you're saying....

1.) Wasting time passing unenforceable laws that we shouldnt care about since they cant be enforced. (in theory)
2.) We should trust our government and allow for the justification of said laws to be determined behind closed doors.

either way, thank you giving me further clarification that i pegged you correctly with my initial observation.

What's behind closed doors? Lol. If you're not a politician and you know about it, it's hardly behind closed doors. I think that's just a phrase that, to you and a lot of people means "I choose not to understand it because the logic center of my brain is clouded with heated rhetoric, irrationality, and rage"

[Sinfix_15]

Nope, some questions are just for personal knowledge. I know that's unusual in this forum as it seems many on here already know everything there is to know about everything.

Gotcha. I offer you a question in return, for the same reason.

Should a weapon capable of killing a classroom full of students and/or puppies be removed solely based on the capability?

[Sinfix_15]

What's behind closed doors? Lol. If you're not a politician and you know about it, it's hardly behind closed doors. I think that's just a phrase that, to you and a lot of people means "I choose not to understand it because the logic center of my brain is clouded with heated rhetoric, irrationality, and rage"

What are the reasons for this law other than the reasons we're being made aware of? Are you implying they have hidden justification, or that their justification is going over my head.

No rage here. It's just easier for the liberal brain to rationalize it's point of view by caricaturizing anyone who opposes it. It's easier than explaining yourself.

[bu villain]

Gotcha. I offer you a question in return, for the same reason.

Should a weapon capable of killing a classroom full of students and/or puppies be removed solely based on the capability?

No.

[.blank cd]

What are the reasons for this law other than the reasons we're being made aware of? Are you implying they have hidden justification, or that their justification is going over my head.lets examine laws and their implications critically and rationally...

I could go buy an F1 car if I had the means, and no one could stop me, but its federally illegal. It'll get me from point a to point b, uses gas, subject to the same laws of physics as all the other cars on the road. As a responsible F1 car owner, I keep it in my garage, wash it, start it up once in a while, and take it to the race track when I want. No one notices me because I'm not out making an ass out of myself. But what about the guy that isn't so responsible? What if he takes it out to get a Cool Ranch Doritos Locos Taco from Taco Bell? The F1 car isn't designed to drive on a public road. No headlights, turn signals, slick tires, etc., then you t-bone someone at 50mph. Since its federally illegal, not only have you committed a state crime, but now you've committed a federal crime. You're punishment gets that much worse since you knew you weren't supposed to have it on the street in the first place. Did you kill the guy you t-boned? Since someone died during your commission of a federal crime, you're looking at murder to start with instead of involuntary manslaughter.

What happens when you ban a specific set of weapons manufactured after a certain date? The demand for those specific weapons goes down. What happens when demand goes down? The people making them, make less of them. The less weapons you make, the less there are in circulation, the less chance of a weapon ending up in the hands of someone who isn't so responsible. Guess who doesn't like the idea of selling less guns? The companies that make those guns.


No rage here. It's just easier for the liberal brain to rationalize it's point of view by caricaturizing anyone who opposes it. It's easier than explaining yourself.Stop using liberal as a pejorative. Makes you sound uneducated. The only people who still use liberal and conservative as a pejorative are people who don't actually know what they mean.

[Echonova]

The genie is out of the bottle. "Assault weapons" are never going away. (I know it's Glen Beck, but you should watch it as well blank).




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwkX8sWSxNQ

[Sinfix_15]

lets examine laws and their implications critically and rationally...

I could go buy an F1 car if I had the means, and no one could stop me, but its federally illegal. It'll get me from point a to point b, uses gas, subject to the same laws of physics as all the other cars on the road. As a responsible F1 car owner, I keep it in my garage, wash it, start it up once in a while, and take it to the race track when I want. No one notices me because I'm not out making an ass out of myself. But what about the guy that isn't so responsible? What if he takes it out to get a Cool Ranch Doritos Locos Taco from Taco Bell? The F1 car isn't designed to drive on a public road. No headlights, turn signals, slick tires, etc., then you t-bone someone at 50mph. Since its federally illegal, not only have you committed a state crime, but now you've committed a federal crime. You're punishment gets that much worse since you knew you weren't supposed to have it on the street in the first place. Did you kill the guy you t-boned? Since someone died during your commission of a federal crime, you're looking at murder to start with instead of involuntary manslaughter.

What happens when you ban a specific set of weapons manufactured after a certain date? The demand for those specific weapons goes down. What happens when demand goes down? The people making them, make less of them. The less weapons you make, the less there are in circulation, the less chance of a weapon ending up in the hands of someone who isn't so responsible. Guess who doesn't like the idea of selling less guns? The companies that make those guns.

Stop using liberal as a pejorative. Makes you sound uneducated. The only people who still use liberal and conservative as a pejorative are people who don't actually know what they mean.


The mistake you're making is assuming that i do not understand your point of view. This is not a misunderstanding. I completely understand your view point........................................... and think you're a moron.

I dont want gun companies to make less guns. I dont want the demand for guns to go down. I dont want less guns made. I dont want less guns in circulation. I want AR15s on the shelves at walmart. I love guns. I love gun culture. I love movies with guns. Owning guns, shooting guns, pictures of guns...... paintings of guns.... bake me cake shaped as a gun with candles that look like bullets. Guns are a part of american culture and meant not only for security and protection, but to be enjoyed. I will not let criminals, politicians, or criminal politicians remove my rights. For your side to be so anti-gun, you need to come to the realization that you're going to need guns to take mine. The radical left wing closet communists have more criminals than they can handle in the cities where their policies are in effect, they should quit trying so hard to turn law abiding citizens like me into a criminal with their gun control legislation. That is all they will accomplish by banning anything.

[Elbow]

The mistake you're making is assuming that i do not understand your point of view. This is not a misunderstanding. I completely understand your view point........................................... and think you're a moron.

I dont want gun companies to make less guns. I dont want the demand for guns to go down. I dont want less guns made. I dont want less guns in circulation. I want AR15s on the shelves at walmart. I love guns. I love gun culture. I love movies with guns. Owning guns, shooting guns, pictures of guns...... paintings of guns.... bake me cake shaped as a gun with candles that look like bullets. Guns are a part of american culture and meant not only for security and protection, but to be enjoyed. I will not let criminals, politicians, or criminal politicians remove my rights. For your side to be so anti-gun, you need to come to the realization that you're going to need guns to take mine.

I know I said I was done but....

"For your side to be so anti-gun, you need to come to the realization that you're going to need guns to take mine."

:lmfao:

I know you love your toys, but this just shows how close minded you are about the situation, you're a fanboy, simple as that. It angers you that you really have no right to which gun you can own and it scares you to think that one day you may not be able to have any weapon you want.

[Sinfix_15]

I know I said I was done but....

"For your side to be so anti-gun, you need to come to the realization that you're going to need guns to take mine."

:lmfao:

I know you love your toys, but this just shows how close minded you are about the situation, you're a fanboy, simple as that. It angers you that you really have no right to which gun you can own and it scares you to think that one day you may not be able to have any weapon you want.

I am very close minded to having my life controlled by the government.

Only tyrants disarm citizens.

[.blank cd]

I know I said I was done but....

"For your side to be so anti-gun, you need to come to the realization that you're going to need guns to take mine."

:lmfao:

I know you love your toys, but this just shows how close minded you are about the situation, you're a fanboy, simple as that. It angers you that you really have no right to which gun you can own and it scares you to think that one day you may not be able to have any weapon you want.

A gun is what identifies him as a person and as a man. It's less of a tool for defense, and more like a boob-jobs. Its what these kinds of people use to fill that control/dominance void in their lives, and it aggrandizes their sense of self. Some people can own a gun, use it for protection, and be fine. The ones that can't are easily manipulated by emotional rhetoric, anecdotal accounts, misinformation, etc. etc. The fact is that an assault weapons ban doesn't affect a non-criminals ability to own a weapon, it doesn't affect a non-criminals 2nd amendment rights whatsoever. And if the country with the military larger than the next 10 nations COMBINED wants your guns, there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. There's no debating that. You can believe otherwise, but you're putting yourself in your own intellectual shithole.

I don't care what weapon he has or how much he loves gun culture. I just want him and EVERYONE ELSE who wants a tool that's designed to kill things to be on the up and up. Simple as that.

[Sinfix_15]

A gun is what identifies him as a person and as a man. It's less of a tool for defense, and more like a boob-jobs. Its what these kinds of people use to fill that control/dominance void in their lives, and it aggrandizes their sense of self. Some people can own a gun, use it for protection, and be fine. The ones that can't are easily manipulated by emotional rhetoric, anecdotal accounts, misinformation, etc. etc. The fact is that an assault weapons ban doesn't affect a non-criminals ability to own a weapon, it doesn't affect a non-criminals 2nd amendment rights whatsoever. And if the country with the military larger than the next 10 nations COMBINED wants your guns, there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. There's no debating that. You can believe otherwise, but you're putting yourself in your own intellectual shithole.

I don't care what weapon he has or how much he loves gun culture. I just want him and EVERYONE ELSE who wants a tool that's designed to kill things to be on the up and up. Simple as that.

Your use of stereotypes make it easier to identify your ignorance. I'm starting to feel shamed for ever thinking that you were an intelligent person. Better to be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. This military that you speak of, you know... the one that is larger than the next 10 nations combined.... the most powerful nation in the world.......

it was all made possible without liberal democrats serving as a nanny over our gun rights. The world as you know it was built by people who would be appalled by your point of view. The military does not impose Obama's will. Our military protects our constitution.

[Elbow]

Our military protects our constitution.

Then you have nothing to worry about in terms of fighting your own country.

[Sinfix_15]

Then you have nothing to worry about in terms of fighting your own country.


America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. - Abraham Lincoln



Our biggest enemies currently sit at our table.

[BanginJimmy]

A gun is what identifies him as a person and as a man. It's less of a tool for defense, and more like a boob-jobs. Its what these kinds of people use to fill that control/dominance void in their lives, and it aggrandizes their sense of self. Some people can own a gun, use it for protection, and be fine. The ones that can't are easily manipulated by emotional rhetoric, anecdotal accounts, misinformation, etc. etc. The fact is that an assault weapons ban doesn't affect a non-criminals ability to own a weapon, it doesn't affect a non-criminals 2nd amendment rights whatsoever. And if the country with the military larger than the next 10 nations COMBINED wants your guns, there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. There's no debating that. You can believe otherwise, but you're putting yourself in your own intellectual shithole.

I don't care what weapon he has or how much he loves gun culture. I just want him and EVERYONE ELSE who wants a tool that's designed to kill things to be on the up and up. Simple as that.


I've pretty much stayed out of this thread but lets be real here. Your side of the aisle is just as easily swayed by emotional rhetoric and misinformation. I would say anecdotal accounts but I honestly cant come up with one that would be in any way affected by current or proposed gun legislation.

Assault weapons bans affect non-criminals, they dont affect criminals. You know this is true and when you say otherwise is simply you denying fact. I love the people that use sandy Hook as the reason we need more gun control. The problem with their argument is that even NY's gun bill would have done nothing to prevent Sandy Hook from happening. The current gun control measures worked when Lanza was denied when he tried to purchase a weapon. The fact that he simply went and stole one and used that is proof that a ban only affects those currently legally allowed to purchase a firearm.

There is no possible way to get your utopian society where only the good guys have access to guns. Guns are readily available in the US, we all know that. If they werent so easily available it would simply open up a new illegal trade in smuggled weapons. Prohibition is a perfect example of this. Illegal to manufacture or sell alcohol in the US? Fine, we will smuggle it from Canada, Central America and Europe.

[Echonova]

» News DEFCAD (http://defcad.org/news/)

[.blank cd]

I've pretty much stayed out of this thread but lets be real here. Your side of the aisle is just as easily swayed by emotional rhetoric and misinformation. I would say anecdotal accounts but I honestly cant come up with one that would be in any way affected by current or proposed gun legislation.

Assault weapons bans affect non-criminals, they dont affect criminals. You know this is true and when you say otherwise is simply you denying fact. I love the people that use sandy Hook as the reason we need more gun control. The problem with their argument is that even NY's gun bill would have done nothing to prevent Sandy Hook from happening. The current gun control measures worked when Lanza was denied when he tried to purchase a weapon. The fact that he simply went and stole one and used that is proof that a ban only affects those currently legally allowed to purchase a firearm.

There is no possible way to get your utopian society where only the good guys have access to guns. Guns are readily available in the US, we all know that. If they werent so easily available it would simply open up a new illegal trade in smuggled weapons. Prohibition is a perfect example of this. Illegal to manufacture or sell alcohol in the US? Fine, we will smuggle it from Canada, Central America and Europe.

What is my side of the isle? Lol. As of yet Ive never declared one. Never advocated a utopian society either.

You know what happens when you assume....

[.blank cd]

Your use of stereotypes make it easier to identify your ignorance. I'm starting to feel shamed for ever thinking that you were an intelligent person. Better to be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. This military that you speak of, you know... the one that is larger than the next 10 nations combined.... the most powerful nation in the world.......

it was all made possible without liberal democrats serving as a nanny over our gun rights. The world as you know it was built by people who would be appalled by your point of view. The military does not impose Obama's will. Our military protects our constitution.

Facepalm. All of this.

[Sinfix_15]

Facepalm. All of this.

It's impossible for you to understand someone caring about something that you do not deem worthy of caring about. You're a textbook liberal democrat. Nothing about your approach is unique. You're the same as every other sheep on your side of the fence. You think you know what is best for everyone better than themselves and you think anyone who doesnt see it your way is stupid. You're cut from the same mold as this arrogant piece of shit we currently call our president.

[Elbow]

It's impossible for you to understand someone caring about something that you do not deem worthy of caring about.

This is straight up comical coming from you.

[Sinfix_15]

This is straight up comical coming from you.

Please explain. I dont get it.

[Elbow]

"It's impossible for you to understand someone caring about something that you do not deem worthy of caring about."

Anyone on here that mentions anything that you don't agree with automatically becomes an idiot or typically a "typical liberal."

More specifically, anytime someone is against assault weapons, they're once again classified as complete morons.

The comment you made is contradicting, you don't understand others points of views and if it's not your view you don't give it any time of the day.

[Sinfix_15]

"It's impossible for you to understand someone caring about something that you do not deem worthy of caring about."

Anyone on here that mentions anything that you don't agree with automatically becomes an idiot or typically a "typical liberal."

More specifically, anytime someone is against assault weapons, they're once again classified as complete morons.

The comment you made is contradicting, you don't understand others points of views and if it's not your view you don't give it any time of the day.

You are confused my child and you make my point for me. While i do think you and blank are both morons, i do not seek to change anything about your life. If you dont want to own something, dont own it. I dont care what you own. However, your belief system doesnt show me the same respect. You think it's ok for you to decide what i can do with my life. That is where we have a problem.

The only way to "understand" the liberal point of view is to submit to it. Nearly every major policy put in place by democrats requires forced participation in one form or another..... if these ideas are so good, why the need to force participation?

[Elbow]

You are confused my child and you make my point for me. While i do think you and blank are both morons, i do not seek to change anything about your life. If you dont want to own something, dont own it. I dont care what you own. However, your belief system doesnt show me the same respect. You think it's ok for you to decide what i can do with my life. That is where we have a problem.

The only way to "understand" the liberal point of view is to submit to it. Nearly every major policy put in place by democrats requires forced participation in one form or another..... if these ideas are so good, why the need to force participation?

I have not once told you what to do with your life. You are the confused one my child.

No matter how you put it, you're a contradicting close minded fool.

[.blank cd]

I'm not even against assault weapons. Lol

[.blank cd]

What is forced participation? What do you feel you're being forced to participate in?

[Sinfix_15]

I have not once told you what to do with your life. You are the confused one my child.

No matter how you put it, you're a contradicting close minded fool.

Nothing is my argument is contradicting. You either cant read or cant comprehend.

[Sinfix_15]

What is forced participation? What do you feel you're being forced to participate in?

Anything i am legally obligated to purchase from a 3rd party. You're big boy....(i think)... you'll figure it out.

[.blank cd]

So you have a problem with democracy?

[Elbow]

Nothing is my argument is contradicting. You either cant read or cant comprehend.

"It's impossible for you to understand someone caring about something that you do not deem worthy of caring about."

That is contradicting to your typical personality on here, defend yourself all you want, but it's the truth.

[Sinfix_15]

So you have a problem with democracy?

Is North Korea a democracy?

[Sinfix_15]

"It's impossible for you to understand someone caring about something that you do not deem worthy of caring about."

That is contradicting to your typical personality on here, defend yourself all you want, but it's the truth.

Give me one example.

[Sinfix_15]

I wont fault you for being misunderstood Simon. Your ignorance comes from good place. You seem like a decent person who just happens to have more heart than brains.

[.blank cd]

Is North Korea a democracy?
What kind of question is that? North Korea isn't a democracy has nothing to do with the question I asked

[Sinfix_15]

What kind of question is that? North Korea isn't a democracy has nothing to do with the question I asked

Tell me 5 things that make North Korea not a democracy.

[.blank cd]

They don't have a democratically elected government....

[Sinfix_15]

They don't have a democratically elected government....

You're not playing the game...... 4 more?

Give me some characteristics that help define Korea's government.

[BanginJimmy]

What is my side of the isle? Lol. As of yet Ive never declared one. Never advocated a utopian society either.

You know what happens when you assume....


While you may not claim to be a leftist, every stance you take on here is leftist.


I do find it funny how you grap onto 1 sentence and simply ignore everything else. Is it because I am right and you have no way to refute it?

[bu villain]

Assault weapons bans affect non-criminals, they dont affect criminals. You know this is true and when you say otherwise is simply you denying fact. I love the people that use sandy Hook as the reason we need more gun control. The problem with their argument is that even NY's gun bill would have done nothing to prevent Sandy Hook from happening. The current gun control measures worked when Lanza was denied when he tried to purchase a weapon. The fact that he simply went and stole one and used that is proof that a ban only affects those currently legally allowed to purchase a firearm.

First of all, you make a distinction between criminals and non-criminals as if people are always one or the other. The fact is, every criminal was at one point a non-criminal before they committed a crime. The ease of which non-criminals can get a gun is therefore not an entirely separate issue from the ease with which a criminal can get a gun. Further, a large number of guns used in crimes are stolen. If those guns were not purchased legally, they could not have been stolen and subsequently used in a crime. What it boils down to is this... if there are less guns available to the general public, there will also be less available to criminals. (keyword is LESS, not NONE)

Now obviously you can't legislate away crazy people killing others, nor can you make the millions of guns already in the country go away, nor will we ever prevent all gun crime. But it is not irrational to think that over a long period of time, having less guns could lead to at least a small decrease in gun crime.

As I have stated before, I do not personally think that we need an assault weapons ban but I do understand where the proponents of such a ban are coming from and I don't think they are morons for the thinking that way.

[Sinfix_15]

First of all, you make a distinction between criminals and non-criminals as if people are always one or the other. The fact is, every criminal was at one point a non-criminal before they committed a crime. The ease of which non-criminals can get a gun is therefore not an entirely separate issue from the ease with which a criminal can get a gun. Further, a large number of guns used in crimes are stolen. If those guns were not purchased legally, they could not have been stolen and subsequently used in a crime. What it boils down to is this... if there are less guns available to the general public, there will also be less available to criminals. (keyword is LESS, not NONE)

Now obviously you can't legislate away crazy people killing others, nor can you make the millions of guns already in the country go away, nor will we ever prevent all gun crime. But it is not irrational to think that over a long period of time, having less guns could lead to at least a small decrease in gun crime.

As I have stated before, I do not personally think that we need an assault weapons ban but I do understand where the proponents of such a ban are coming from and I don't think they are morons for the thinking that way.

This is simply not a stance that i agree with. It is an option that are forefathers were aware of when they disagreed with it. To me, thinking it is an option is offensive. When you start removing freedom for the sake of safety, you are no longer free. Freedom is dangerous. Making guns less available to everyone, for the sake of making guns less available to criminals.... is NOT something i would ever support. There's no confusion between sides of this issue. I understand their stance... and strongly oppose it.

Also, the left side of the isle confidently speaks out that less guns equals less crime. Show me a place where that is proven to be true? statistics seem to show the opposite.

[BanginJimmy]

First of all, you make a distinction between criminals and non-criminals as if people are always one or the other. The fact is, every criminal was at one point a non-criminal before they committed a crime. The ease of which non-criminals can get a gun is therefore not an entirely separate issue from the ease with which a criminal can get a gun. Further, a large number of guns used in crimes are stolen. If those guns were not purchased legally, they could not have been stolen and subsequently used in a crime. What it boils down to is this... if there are less guns available to the general public, there will also be less available to criminals. (keyword is LESS, not NONE)

Now obviously you can't legislate away crazy people killing others, nor can you make the millions of guns already in the country go away, nor will we ever prevent all gun crime. But it is not irrational to think that over a long period of time, having less guns could lead to at least a small decrease in gun crime.

As I have stated before, I do not personally think that we need an assault weapons ban but I do understand where the proponents of such a ban are coming from and I don't think they are morons for the thinking that way.

Every person in the world is a non criminal until they make the conscience choice to become a criminal. You are wrong in that there is this gray area.

So you want to decide which non-criminals should be allowed to get guns? Obviously you dont because its not possible. So how else would you like to limit how many guns are available to non criminals?

Are you actually trying to tell me that if guns became less plentiful it would make the illegal gun trade disappear? Do you not think that other criminals would not simply move in to fill that void? This is why I bring up prohibition.

Since more people are killed with cars every year, why not limit cars too? That would save more lives than any gun ban would. Also, you have a Constitutional right to your guns, not to a car.

[.blank cd]

While you may not claim to be a leftist, every stance you take on here is leftist.According to whom?

You?


I do find it funny how you grasp onto 1 sentence and simply ignore everything else. Is it because I am right and you have no way to refute it?
No. Because I'm busy at work and don't have time to dissect your whole paragraphs. Either that or Im trying to get more focused answers.

[bu villain]

When you start removing freedom for the sake of safety, you are no longer free. Freedom is dangerous.

Definitely true, however you can't ignore that every law we have is a limiting of some freedom. Many of them are for the sake of safety. Driving tests, background checks, seat belt laws, and many many more. So by your definition, we haven't been free for a long long time. So, this is not going to be a very persuasive argument.


Making guns less available to everyone, for the sake of making guns less available to criminals.... is NOT something i would ever support. There's no confusion between sides of this issue. I understand their stance... and strongly oppose it.

And this is something we agree on which is why I'm trying to point out that beating someone over the head with your opinion is not going to change as many minds as recognizing the concerns of the other side and responding to them in a persuasive way.


Also, the left side of the isle confidently speaks out that less guns equals less crime. Show me a place where that is proven to be true? statistics seem to show the opposite.

The fact is there are not sufficient statistics to prove either side but there is plenty of statistics that could support either side. FACT: countries with less guns generally have less gun crime. FACT: Switzerland has a lot of guns and little gun crime. Both are true but support opposite conclusions. Both sides speak confidently because they believe their facts are more important than the other sides facts. The reality is, most people believe what they want and then find facts to back it up afterwards.

[bu villain]

Every person in the world is a non criminal until they make the conscience choice to become a criminal. You are wrong in that there is this gray area.

I'm not saying a person is both a criminal and non-criminal at the same time. I am saying a non-criminal can get a gun and then become a criminal by robbing someone with their legally purchased gun.


So you want to decide which non-criminals should be allowed to get guns? Obviously you dont because its not possible. So how else would you like to limit how many guns are available to non criminals?

We already do. We say that mentally ill people can not buy guns. We also say you must have a class 3 license to buy certain weapons. Most people don't take much issue with that.


Are you actually trying to tell me that if guns became less plentiful it would make the illegal gun trade disappear? Do you not think that other criminals would not simply move in to fill that void? This is why I bring up prohibition.

As I stated before, the keyword is LESS not NONE. Of course the gun trade would not dissappear but prices would go up and supply would go down. Are you arguing that there was more and cheaper alcohol available during prohibition than when it was legal?


Since more people are killed with cars every year, why not limit cars too? That would save more lives than any gun ban would. Also, you have a Constitutional right to your guns, not to a car.

The answer is, as a society we agree that cars are very dangerous but we also recognize the immense value they provide. Therefor we agree on certain limitations such as driver's tests, mandatory insurance, and all the various driving laws. We even have rules on what kind of cars are allowed on our streets. The discussion the country is having on guns is very similar. What restrictions are legitimate to mitigate the dangers associated with guns while recognizing the benefits of guns. That is the argument we are having now.

[Sinfix_15]

Definitely true, however you can't ignore that every law we have is a limiting of some freedom. Many of them are for the sake of safety. Driving tests, background checks, seat belt laws, and many many more. So by your definition, we haven't been free for a long long time. So, this is not going to be a very persuasive argument.
Having lost *some* freedom is not reason to volunteer more. I do feel our freedom is being chipped away in more areas than guns. Some things are a compromise and they are also conditional of a public space. I can drive a car without a license or seat belt on private property. Wearing a seat belt and having a license is a condition of driving on the public street. If you want to impose rules for carrying a gun on public property, that's fine. It is to my understanding that is already the case. A club can restrict access to someone carrying a gun. We have gun free zones. Your permission to carry a weapon is conditional already. Not that criminals do or ever will give a shit....




And this is something we agree on which is why I'm trying to point out that beating someone over the head with your opinion is not going to change as many minds as recognizing the concerns of the other side and responding to them in a persuasive way.
There is no common ground with the liberal left to be shared. Theyre on a mission to remove guns, not make guns safer, not make schools safer, not punish criminals..... One thing about a bleeding heart is that theyre all terrified of their own blood. The best thing in my opinion we can do is continue reminding them of the mountain they will have to climb to accomplish their goal. Knowing the opposition that stands in front of them will break their spirits. The left rides the wave of public opinion and attempts to sway it as much as possible. When that wave crashes, they tuck tail.




The fact is there are not sufficient statistics to prove either side but there is plenty of statistics that could support either side. FACT: countries with less guns generally have less gun crime. FACT: Switzerland has a lot of guns and little gun crime. Both are true but support opposite conclusions. Both sides speak confidently because they believe their facts are more important than the other sides facts. The reality is, most people believe what they want and then find facts to back it up afterwards.

I agree, but it's a little too easy to poke holes in the left's argument. Every city where they got what they want, it turned out to be chaos. Now theyre using the excuse that neighboring cities and states not adopting their laws is why they have a problem. Ok, so at what point would that argument become invalid. If the entire US was a gun free zone, guns would still be imported. No place in the US is it legal to harvest cocaine, but we still have it. So what do we have to do to accurately prove that liberal policy does not work? convert the entire world? Make no mistake...... theyre trying.

[David88vert]

First of all, you make a distinction between criminals and non-criminals as if people are always one or the other. The fact is, every criminal was at one point a non-criminal before they committed a crime. The ease of which non-criminals can get a gun is therefore not an entirely separate issue from the ease with which a criminal can get a gun. Further, a large number of guns used in crimes are stolen. If those guns were not purchased legally, they could not have been stolen and subsequently used in a crime. What it boils down to is this... if there are less guns available to the general public, there will also be less available to criminals. (keyword is LESS, not NONE)

Now obviously you can't legislate away crazy people killing others, nor can you make the millions of guns already in the country go away, nor will we ever prevent all gun crime. But it is not irrational to think that over a long period of time, having less guns could lead to at least a small decrease in gun crime.

As I have stated before, I do not personally think that we need an assault weapons ban but I do understand where the proponents of such a ban are coming from and I don't think they are morons for the thinking that way.

Innocent until proven guilty ... or just assume all are guilty? Just food for thought....

[Sinfix_15]

As I stated before, the keyword is LESS not NONE. Of course the gun trade would not dissappear but prices would go up and supply would go down. Are you arguing that there was more and cheaper alcohol available during prohibition than when it was legal?



The answer is, as a society we agree that cars are very dangerous but we also recognize the immense value they provide. Therefor we agree on certain limitations such as driver's tests, mandatory insurance, and all the various driving laws. We even have rules on what kind of cars are allowed on our streets. The discussion the country is having on guns is very similar. What restrictions are legitimate to mitigate the dangers associated with guns while recognizing the benefits of guns. That is the argument we are having now.

I'm shocked at how you think this is a reasonable argument. why should the cost of guns go up and the demand go down? Also..... apply this logic to existing proposals..... the left isnt trying to ban cheap pawnshop pocket pistols... theyre trying to ban AR15s....... AR15s are already priced out of the criminal market. That's why you dont hear about liquor stores being robbed with AR15s.... because if you can afford an AR15 to begin with, you can probably front for bottle of boone's farm. This argument is contradictory.... and goes to prove what you said before, "people believe what they believe, then plug in stats afterwards".

[Sinfix_15]

According to whom?

You?


No. Because I'm busy at work and don't have time to dissect your whole paragraphs. Either that or Im trying to get more focused answers.

You're so far left that you believe your far left agenda is the middle, like your other far lefties are trying to sell in the media. " American wanted this, its not the left, its america"....

You sir, are about as left as left gets.

[.blank cd]

You're so far left that you believe your far left agenda is the middle, like your other far lefties are trying to sell in the media. " American wanted this, its not the left, its america"....

You sir, are about as left as left gets.

According to you?

[Sinfix_15]

According to you?

In the spirit of finding common ground..... lets talk about the republican agendas that you support.

ready set go.....

Dont hurt yourself from typing so fast.

[.blank cd]

Free market. A degree of limited government.

[Sinfix_15]

Free market. A degree of limited government.

by free market you mean a market that drives up the cost of guns in hopes of eventually drying up the demand? or do you mean a market that applies the same tactics to natural gas?

by limited government..... do you mean expanding all areas of government control and removing any remnant of civilian's power to oppose it?

[Sinfix_15]

lets examine laws and their implications critically and rationally...

I could go buy an F1 car if I had the means, and no one could stop me, but its federally illegal. It'll get me from point a to point b, uses gas, subject to the same laws of physics as all the other cars on the road. As a responsible F1 car owner, I keep it in my garage, wash it, start it up once in a while, and take it to the race track when I want. No one notices me because I'm not out making an ass out of myself. But what about the guy that isn't so responsible? What if he takes it out to get a Cool Ranch Doritos Locos Taco from Taco Bell? The F1 car isn't designed to drive on a public road. No headlights, turn signals, slick tires, etc., then you t-bone someone at 50mph. Since its federally illegal, not only have you committed a state crime, but now you've committed a federal crime. You're punishment gets that much worse since you knew you weren't supposed to have it on the street in the first place. Did you kill the guy you t-boned? Since someone died during your commission of a federal crime, you're looking at murder to start with instead of involuntary manslaughter.

What happens when you ban a specific set of weapons manufactured after a certain date? The demand for those specific weapons goes down. What happens when demand goes down? The people making them, make less of them. The less weapons you make, the less there are in circulation, the less chance of a weapon ending up in the hands of someone who isn't so responsible. Guess who doesn't like the idea of selling less guns? The companies that make those guns.

Stop using liberal as a pejorative. Makes you sound uneducated. The only people who still use liberal and conservative as a pejorative are people who don't actually know what they mean.

believes in a free market, believes the government should have the ability to manipulate the market.

[bu villain]

Having lost *some* freedom is not reason to volunteer more. I do feel our freedom is being chipped away in more areas than guns. Some things are a compromise and they are also conditional of a public space. I can drive a car without a license or seat belt on private property. Wearing a seat belt and having a license is a condition of driving on the public street. If you want to impose rules for carrying a gun on public property, that's fine. It is to my understanding that is already the case. A club can restrict access to someone carrying a gun. We have gun free zones. Your permission to carry a weapon is conditional already. Not that criminals do or ever will give a shit....

Your right having lost some freedoms is not a reason to volunteer more but it also means that it's not a strong rebuttal for the opposite. I think the public/private space argument is a good argument to make and could lead to some compromises. Although many people on the pro gun side are arguing the opposite, that guns should be allowed into nearly every public location including schools. Also, not an important point but clubs aren't public property.




There is no common ground with the liberal left to be shared. Theyre on a mission to remove guns, not make guns safer, not make schools safer, not punish criminals..... One thing about a bleeding heart is that theyre all terrified of their own blood. The best thing in my opinion we can do is continue reminding them of the mountain they will have to climb to accomplish their goal. Knowing the opposition that stands in front of them will break their spirits. The left rides the wave of public opinion and attempts to sway it as much as possible. When that wave crashes, they tuck tail.

Interesting take on things but it does have the downside of inhibiting compromise for those who really do care about safety which I think is more people than you are willing to accept.



I agree, but it's a little too easy to poke holes in the left's argument. Every city where they got what they want, it turned out to be chaos. Now theyre using the excuse that neighboring cities and states not adopting their laws is why they have a problem. Ok, so at what point would that argument become invalid. If the entire US was a gun free zone, guns would still be imported. No place in the US is it legal to harvest cocaine, but we still have it. So what do we have to do to accurately prove that liberal policy does not work? convert the entire world? Make no mistake...... theyre trying.

Actually I think you are more right than you want to be. Banning handguns in Chicago city limits doesn't do much if there are so many guns freely available within a 5 minute drive of the city limits. So it really doesn't prove or disprove anything. Honestly, to know for sure, we would need similar bans for the entire country and then analyze statistics for the next decade or two. The real world is messy and social sciences are always up for debate. We have to make our best judgements with imperfect data.

[bu villain]

Innocent until proven guilty ... or just assume all are guilty? Just food for thought....

Guilty of what? Gun owners aren't immune to being robbed. And the response was to the comment that "criminals aren't affected by laws". I was saying that they are affected at very least indirectly.

[.blank cd]

believes in a free market, believes the government should have the ability to manipulate the market.

I think you're unclear on what free market means. Lol

[David88vert]

Guilty of what? Gun owners aren't immune to being robbed. And the response was to the comment that "criminals aren't affected by laws". I was saying that they are affected at very least indirectly.

"First of all, you make a distinction between criminals and non-criminals as if people are always one or the other. The fact is, every criminal was at one point a non-criminal before they committed a crime. The ease of which non-criminals can get a gun is therefore not an entirely separate issue from the ease with which a criminal can get a gun. Further, a large number of guns used in crimes are stolen. If those guns were not purchased legally, they could not have been stolen and subsequently used in a crime. What it boils down to is this... if there are less guns available to the general public, there will also be less available to criminals. (keyword is LESS, not NONE)"


Kind of obvious - Suggesting the removal of Constitutional rights from non-criminals in the hopes that such an effort would affect the ability of criminals to obtain weapons illegally, which is at its core, is simply negating the differences between criminals and non-criminals by criminalizing the behavior of non-criminals.

[bu villain]

I'm shocked at how you think this is a reasonable argument. why should the cost of guns go up and the demand go down? Also..... apply this logic to existing proposals..... the left isnt trying to ban cheap pawnshop pocket pistols... theyre trying to ban AR15s....... AR15s are already priced out of the criminal market. That's why you dont hear about liquor stores being robbed with AR15s.... because if you can afford an AR15 to begin with, you can probably front for bottle of boone's farm. This argument is contradictory.... and goes to prove what you said before, "people believe what they believe, then plug in stats afterwards".

I didn't say demand would go down I said supply would go down. Simple economics. If a supply goes down and demand stays the same, prices will go up. Also, about AR15s, I agree with what you said. The reason they want to ban them isn't because they are commonly used in crimes, it's because they are less common but more "effective tools" and so there would not be as much resistance. Using the car analogy again, it's like banning Ferraris instead of Hondas. People can get on board with restricting luxuries with less practical value.

[bu villain]

Kind of obvious - Suggesting the removal of Constitutional rights from non-criminals in the hopes that such an effort would affect the ability of criminals to obtain weapons illegally, which is at its core, is simply negating the differences between criminals and non-criminals by criminalizing the behavior of non-criminals.

Not everyone believe owning an assault weapon is a constitutional right. Most people are fine with background checks. Is that also a criminalizing of the behavior of non-criminals?

[Sinfix_15]

Your right having lost some freedoms is not a reason to volunteer more but it also means that it's not a strong rebuttal for the opposite. I think the public/private space argument is a good argument to make and could lead to some compromises. Although many people on the pro gun side are arguing the opposite, that guns should be allowed into nearly every public location including schools. Also, not an important point but clubs aren't public property.

You understand the point, its more aimed at having conditions for particular spaces.... which we already do anyways and it has zero effect on criminals. If anything.... it assists criminals. If a criminal wants to kill a bunch of people, theyre not going to go assault the barracks at ft benning, theyre going to search out a place where they will find the least resistance, nothing advertises that more than " GUN FREE ZONE "




Interesting take on things but it does have the downside of inhibiting compromise for those who really do care about safety which I think is more people than you are willing to accept.
The mistake you make is that safety is a side of the fence. Both sides want safety, where we differ is in how to accomplish it. The left has a habit of making emotional policies vs rational ones. They also have no issues with burning down the forest to remove a tree.




Actually I think you are more right than you want to be. Banning handguns in Chicago city limits doesn't do much if there are so many guns freely available within a 5 minute drive of the city limits. So it really doesn't prove or disprove anything. Honestly, to know for sure, we would need similar bans for the entire country and then analyze statistics for the next decade or two. The real world is messy and social sciences are always up for debate. We have to make our best judgements with imperfect data.

Ok, so since that option simply is never going to happen........

let's build a 30 foot wall around chicago and patiently watch as it becomes a thriving economic paradise without interferance from the outside world..... lol

[David88vert]

I didn't say demand would go down I said supply would go down. Simple economics. If a supply goes down and demand stays the same, prices will go up. Also, about AR15s, I agree with what you said. The reason they want to ban them isn't because they are commonly used in crimes, it's because they are less common but more "effective tools" and so there would not be as much resistance. Using the car analogy again, it's like banning Ferraris instead of Hondas. People can get on board with restricting luxuries with less practical value.

Let's go back to the car analogy that started this thread. You've pointed out that we are off-course. :-)

On the main page of CNN right now are two terrible car crashes, and both involved SUVs.
Teen tragedy: 5 die in fiery collision with tanker truck in Texas - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/12/us/texas-teens-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t3)
6 teens killed, 2 injured when overcrowded SUV flips into pond - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/11/us/ohio-deadly-crash/index.html?hpt=hp_t3)

Both of these crashes happened within hours of each other.The first crash in OH killed 6 teens, and injured 2 others. The second crash in TX killed 5 teens.
11 teens dead that fast.
Such accidents took the lives of about a quarter of the 15- to 24-year-olds who died in 2010, according to the most recent numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
They outpaced the other top culprits: firearm wounds, homicides, suicides and accidental poisonings.

Where are the outcrys to ban SUVs? They are obviously more deadly, and available everywhere to everyone, with no restrictions. Why isn't Obama on the TV promising to push for "SUV control"?

[Sinfix_15]

I think you're unclear on what free market means. Lol

I admit, i am very loosely versed in what a liberal democrat would call "free" or "freedom".

[.blank cd]

You understand the point, its more aimed at having conditions for particular spaces.... which we already do anyways and it has zero effect on criminals. If anything.... it assists criminals. If a criminal wants to kill a bunch of people, theyre not going to go assault the barracks at ft benning, theyre going to search out a place where they will find the least resistance, nothing advertises that more than " GUN FREE ZONE "Spoken like someone who isn't trying to assault someone with a gun.

It doesn't always work how you think it does.


The mistake you make is that safety is a side of the fence. Both sides want safety, where we differ is in how to accomplish it. The left has a habit of making emotional policies vs rational ones. They also have no issues with burning down the forest to remove a tree.This is laughable.

[David88vert]

Not everyone believe owning an assault weapon is a constitutional right. Most people are fine with background checks. Is that also a criminalizing of the behavior of non-criminals?

Background checks are not removing a Constitutional right IF the person is not a criminal. The laws are very clear on this point.

The very definition of the current proposed legistation would make any semi-automatic weapon illegal. That's a very broad net to cast.

[.blank cd]

I admit, i am very loosely versed in what a rational human would call "free" or "freedom".
This we can agree on.

I'm not a democrat.

[Sinfix_15]

Spoken like someone who isn't trying to assault someone with a gun.

It doesn't always work how you think it does.

This is laughable.

You're right. I'm not trying to assault someone with a gun, but that doesnt stop the left from wanting my gun does it?

[Sinfix_15]

This we can agree on.

I'm not a democrat.

Awesome.

I'm riding a unicorn to work today where i will be assembling light sabers powered by fairy dust. Jesus died for your sins.

[Sinfix_15]

Background checks are not removing a Constitutional right IF the person is not a criminal. The laws are very clear on this point.

The very definition of the current proposed legistation would make any semi-automatic weapon illegal. That's a very broad net to cast.

However they want to shape it or sell it, the left wants to get rid of all guns. They cast a broad net on purpose, to remove as many guns as possible.

[David88vert]

They also have no issues with burning down the forest to remove a tree.



We all know that liberals are tree huggers and would never cut or burn a tree...... :-p

[David88vert]

I'm not a democrat.

That's because the Democratic Party is way too conservative for you. You would never consort with those right-wingers. :-P

[Sinfix_15]

two articles i just stumbled on...

Piers Morgan: We All 'Need The Nanny State Occasionally' (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/03/12/Piers-Morgan-We-All-Need-The-Nanny-State-Occasionally?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

Chicago: 6-month-old baby dies after being shot 5 times in gang-related attack - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/12/chicago-6-month-old-baby-dies-after-being-shot-5-t/)

[.blank cd]

You're right. I'm not trying to assault someone with a gun, but that doesnt stop the left from wanting my gun does it?

This is the thing. No one wants your gun. You're still arguing from a position which doesn't exist.

You need to clarify your position. No one is, has, or ever will come into your home and take the gun you already own.

[Sinfix_15]

This is the thing. No one wants your gun. You're still arguing from a position which doesn't exist.

You need to clarify your position. No one is, has, or ever will come into your home and take the gun you already own.

So you're saying......... nobody wants my AR15? SKS? AK47? Slidefire stock? 30 round mags? 100 round drums?

Funny..... because when i listen to the gun control hearings on TV, those senators have me convinced that they do in fact want them.

What about the semi automatic rifle i want for christmas this year? they want that one dont they? by "want" i mean want to prevent me from purchasing it.

[Sinfix_15]

funny.... i just took a stroll over to some california senator's own personal website, clicked a section called "political positions".... scrolled down to a section called "guns" and this is what i found...

I wrote the assault weapons ban that was the law of the land for a decade. Against all odds we passed that bill in 1994. Now the National Rifle Association essentially has a stranglehold on Congress. Recently I have been frustrated by Congress� unwillingness to pass commonsense measures to reduce gun violence. Even after Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was seriously injured and six others killed in a January 2011 shooting, Congress failed to ban the large-capacity ammunition feeding device that allowed the shooter to kill and injure so many people so quickly. I deeply regret this.

[.blank cd]

Stop listening to what they're saying. Read what is being proposed.

[Sinfix_15]

The left has an 80 year old woman as their spokesperson for guns.

[Sinfix_15]

Stop listening to what they're saying. Read what is being proposed.

http://kara.allthingsd.com/files/2008/07/trojanhorse.jpg


seems legit.

[bu villain]

You understand the point, its more aimed at having conditions for particular spaces.... which we already do anyways and it has zero effect on criminals. If anything.... it assists criminals. If a criminal wants to kill a bunch of people, theyre not going to go assault the barracks at ft benning, theyre going to search out a place where they will find the least resistance, nothing advertises that more than " GUN FREE ZONE "

I don't understand where you are going with this. These seems to be going off on a tangent. The point is, we do regulate where you can do certain dangerous activities even though people will break those rules. You can argue about what the effects of that are but I was never arguing that point.


The mistake you make is that safety is a side of the fence. Both sides want safety, where we differ is in how to accomplish it. The left has a habit of making emotional policies vs rational ones. They also have no issues with burning down the forest to remove a tree.

No you are mischaracterizing my position. You were the one who side one side doesn't care about safety. I was saying that wasn't true and your unwillingness to accept that the other side has valid concerns prevents progress from being made between the people on both sides who care about safety.


Ok, so since that option simply is never going to happen........

let's build a 30 foot wall around chicago and patiently watch as it becomes a thriving economic paradise without interferance from the outside world..... lol

Not at all what the implication was. My point was purely that Chicago doesn't prove or disprove the effectiveness of gun control at a national level.

[bu villain]

Where are the outcrys to ban SUVs? They are obviously more deadly, and available everywhere to everyone, with no restrictions. Why isn't Obama on the TV promising to push for "SUV control"?

I already answered this in post #616. We do have restrictions on SUVs and all cars precisely because they are dangerous.


Background checks are not removing a Constitutional right IF the person is not a criminal. The laws are very clear on this point.

The very definition of the current proposed legistation would make any semi-automatic weapon illegal. That's a very broad net to cast.

I believe the Supreme Court already ruled that a ban on assault weapons is not unconstitutional last time the ban was in effect. We would have to wait and see regarding all semi-autos but I doubt that legislation would get passed in the first place. I agree we should not ban them but just because I disagree doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

[Sinfix_15]

No you are mischaracterizing my position. You were the one who side one side doesn't care about safety. I was saying that wasn't true and your unwillingness to accept that the other side has valid concerns prevents progress from being made between the people on both sides who care about safety. I do not think the government is interested in anyone's safety but their own. When i say "both sides care about safety" i'm speaking on behalf of someone who thinks banning guns would make their kids more safe, however wrong or misguided they may be. "The left doesnt care about safety", im speaking to the ones in power. Not their flock of sheep.




Not at all what the implication was. My point was purely that Chicago doesn't prove or disprove the effectiveness of gun control at a national level.

It's simply a coincidence that other cities where guns are wide spread are doing just fine. Chicago's only issue is guns being imported from all of the violent places surrounding them. We should all bend to chicago's will and adopt their policies..... How does this make sense? The left always finds a way to blame something else for their failure. Why cant the left ever lead by example? A state like texas can say " we did this and look at this " the liberal states always have to say "we could do this if not for this"

[bu villain]

I do not think the government is interested in anyone's safety but their own. When i say "both sides care about safety" i'm speaking on behalf of someone who thinks banning guns would make their kids more safe, however wrong or misguided they may be. "The left doesnt care about safety", im speaking to the ones in power. Not their flock of sheep.

Then why are you speaking in such absolutes to people on this forum who are not politicians? Politicians number one priority is getting reelected. If you change the minds of their constituents, the politicians will follow.



It's simply a coincidence that other cities where guns are wide spread are doing just fine. Chicago's only issue is guns being imported from all of the violent places surrounding them. We should all bend to chicago's will and adopt their policies..... How does this make sense? The left always finds a way to blame something else for their failure. Why cant the left ever lead by example? A state like texas can say " we did this and look at this " the liberal states always have to say "we could do this if not for this"

Chicago's violence problem has been going on much longer than their strict gun control laws. As I said, Chicago's laws do not prove nor disprove gun control laws so no, it doesn't mean everywhere should adopt their policies. I haven't heard anyone on the left say that Chicago proves gun control works either.

[Sinfix_15]

Then why are you speaking in such absolutes to people on this forum who are not politicians? Politicians number one priority is getting reelected. If you change the minds of their constituents, the politicians will follow.


Frustration. Recognizing that most of their base are programmed to believe what theyre told. Nothing you could ever say could change someone like Blank's mind.

I mean seriously.... look a few posts up....

[.blank cd]

Frustration. Recognizing that most of their base are programmed to believe what theyre told. Nothing you could ever say could change someone like Blank's mind.

I mean seriously.... look a few posts up....

My mind could definitely be changed. It's not gonna be changed with straw man arguments though.

[Sinfix_15]

My mind could definitely be changed. It's not gonna be changed with straw man arguments though.

says the person who directly told me not to listen to what his representatives are saying.


Just for giggles, why should i not listen to what theyre saying?

[Sinfix_15]

Gun Control: Colorado Democrats Are Ready To Spark A Revolution (http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/gun-control-colorado-democrats-are-ready-to-spark-a-revolution/#.UT_FjJ34L-M.twitter)

Nothin to see here....

someone like Blank would have you sit quietly until the wolf is at your door.

Obama says " the police are tired of being out gunned "

I'm not convinced that the police arent something i might have to defend myself from in the future.

[Sinfix_15]

Here's the answer to why gun control and healthcare are linked.

Guns of Law-Abiding Husband Confiscated After Wife’s Single Voluntary Mental Health Visit | TheBlaze.com (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/12/calif-gun-owner-who-says-she-admitted-herself-to-mental-hospital-for-medication-adjustment-has-guns-confiscated/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=Share%20Buttons)

[.blank cd]

Here's the answer to why gun control and healthcare are linked.

Guns of Law-Abiding Husband Confiscated After Wife’s Single Voluntary Mental Health Visit | TheBlaze.com (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/12/calif-gun-owner-who-says-she-admitted-herself-to-mental-hospital-for-medication-adjustment-has-guns-confiscated/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=Share%20Buttons)

The cognitive dissonance of the commenters on that site is perplexing. Those people are so mind blowingly disconnected from reality, its terrifying.

[David88vert]

I already answered this in post #616. We do have restrictions on SUVs and all cars precisely because they are dangerous.

We allow 16 year old kids to drive them with our blessing, and as you can see, numerous deaths occured with only 2 crashes. If we can save only 1 life, we must take action, and ban these instruments of deaths and destruction. How many more families will have to suffer before we act?????
</sarcasm>



I believe the Supreme Court already ruled that a ban on assault weapons is not unconstitutional last time the ban was in effect. We would have to wait and see regarding all semi-autos but I doubt that legislation would get passed in the first place. I agree we should not ban them but just because I disagree doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

Correct, and I agree.

About Diane Feinstein's current proposal, the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the "pistol grip" of which "protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon," the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any "grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." Also, the new bill adds "forward grip" to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as "a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip." Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle.
Also, she wants to seize all of these guns by prohibiting the transfer of "assault weapons." Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein's new bill, "assault weapons" would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government. That means that you would not be able to give your firearm that you purchased, and is your sole property, to you children. That is seizure or personal property by the government without a court order. Fourth Amendment, anyone?

[91LudeSiT]

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/03/13/7eqy2ura.jpg

[Echonova]

I will now endow this thread with another professional personal opinion of mine.


bu villain... You sir, are a proper gentleman. While I do not 100% agree with the opinions you posted. Your replies are always thorough and well thought out. I honestly enjoy reading your replies and pondering the point of view.

blank... The answering a question with a question thing is getting old. You are not smarter, wiser, nor more knowledgeable than some other members on this board (albeit smarter than most, I'll give you that). Although you do put up a good front. The "Holier-than-thou" thing went out with 2010 and skinny jeans... Some people still rock it, but it's not a good look. Your replies are as predictable as hearing about Jesus being preached in my church on Sunday morning.

[.blank cd]

blank... The answering a question with a question thing is getting old.I always have an anterior motive. If you don't have enough info to continue the discussion, don't answer the follow up question. And dont ask broad questions when speaking on a specific topic. Simple as apple pie.

"Do you believe in socialism?"

This is not a yes or no answer. If you ask closed ended questions on a very specific topic, expect to be grilled for specifics. Politics, by its nature, doesn't work in a yes-no, left-right paradigm.

[Sinfix_15]

I will now endow this thread with another professional personal opinion of mine.


bu villain... You sir, are a proper gentleman. While I do not 100% agree with the opinions you posted. Your replies are always thorough and well thought out. I honestly enjoy reading your replies and pondering the point of view.

blank... The answering a question with a question thing is getting old. You are not smarter, wiser, nor more knowledgeable than some other members on this board (albeit smarter than most, I'll give you that). Although you do put up a good front. The "Holier-than-thou" thing went out with 2010 and skinny jeans... Some people still rock it, but it's not a good look. Your replies are as predictable as hearing about Jesus being preached in my church on Sunday morning.

I agree on both, somewhat....

Buvillan is a gentleman and is fun to debate with. He almost makes me feel bad for being an asshole sometimes......... almost.

Blank is book smart..... which unfortunately does not always translate to common sense, something he severely lacks. Blank cherry picks moments to comment when he can recite some rehearsed politically correct rhetoric. He goes to great lengths to disguise his actual opinions on topics, that is assuming he's even capable of forming his own.

[On_Her_Face]

I'm going to own guns. I purchased them legally, I follow the rules, nobody will take them from me. That's final. LOL

[bu villain]

Frustration. Recognizing that most of their base are programmed to believe what theyre told. Nothing you could ever say could change someone like Blank's mind.

I mean seriously.... look a few posts up....

If you believe that, may I ask why you continue to debate him?

[bu villain]

We allow 16 year old kids to drive them with our blessing, and as you can see, numerous deaths occured with only 2 crashes. If we can save only 1 life, we must take action, and ban these instruments of deaths and destruction. How many more families will have to suffer before we act?????
</sarcasm>

I understand you are pointing out the over the top rhetoric that is used, but obviously that does not mean we should ban absolutely everything that has ever killed someone. Or maybe Obama means we should ban water to prevent drowning, ladders to prevent falling from height, and soap to prevent bathroom slips. If we can get past the obvious political hyperbole and focus on the issue of assessing the effectiveness of our laws regarding gun safety, we can actually move forward.




That means that you would not be able to give your firearm that you purchased, and is your sole property, to you children. That is seizure or personal property by the government without a court order. Fourth Amendment, anyone?

I don't believe dead people have rights under the fourth amendment. There are already rules in place for what you can give to your heirs and what part of it the government gets. This isn't breaking ground in that respect.

[Sinfix_15]

If you believe that, may I ask why you continue to debate him?

Not seeking to. I enjoy a good argument and a difference of opinion, but arguing with blank is like arguing with the automated service when you call the cable company. He's a rhetoric machine, he rarely offers any personal insight on a topic in fear of exposing himself. If i want to know what the Obama campaign thinks about a given topic, i'll go to website and be fed bullshit directly from the source, dont need Blank to hold the spoon.

[bu villain]

bu villain... You sir, are a proper gentleman. While I do not 100% agree with the opinions you posted. Your replies are always thorough and well thought out. I honestly enjoy reading your replies and pondering the point of view.


Buvillan is a gentleman and is fun to debate with. He almost makes me feel bad for being an asshole sometimes......... almost.


You guys are a bunch of sweethearts. I just enjoy debate and learning other people's points of view. That's why I'm usually playing devil's advocate such as in this thread where I don't believe in an assault weapons ban but I am defending the merits of that side anyways. People's inability to view things from a different perspective is what I hope to change more than any single political view on an issue.

[Elbow]

Why can't I be a sweetheart for viewing two different view points? :(

It's BS I tell ya, BS!

[David88vert]

I understand you are pointing out the over the top rhetoric that is used, but obviously that does not mean we should ban absolutely everything that has ever killed someone. Or maybe Obama means we should ban water to prevent drowning, ladders to prevent falling from height, and soap to prevent bathroom slips. If we can get past the obvious political hyperbole and focus on the issue of assessing the effectiveness of our laws regarding gun safety, we can actually move forward.


More people are killed by car crashes than firearms. That's an undisputable fact. Banning all forms of motorized transportation and going back to horses and wagons would reduce the amount of deaths far more than banning all privately owned firearms. If you want to pass laws to promote safety and prevent deaths, then look at where you can find the most gains.

Banning cars is not politically correct though, and banning firearms is an easier sale to the general public.



I don't believe dead people have rights under the fourth amendment. There are already rules in place for what you can give to your heirs and what part of it the government gets. This isn't breaking ground in that respect.

When a person dies, their possession become part of their estate, which a living person is appointed as an executor or an administrator over. The estate functions with the same rights and responsibilities as a living individual until all assests have been distributed and the estate is dissolved. I've had to handle them before, and I am handling one currently.
So, yes, the Fourth Amendment, should apply to the living administrator/executor of the estate who is legally responsible for the assest that happens to be a firearm.

[.blank cd]

Not seeking to. I enjoy a good argument and a difference of opinion, but arguing with blank is like arguing with the automated service when you call the cable company.Except, in this case, you're the irate customer who keeps trying to tell me your Monopoly money is just as legitimate as real currency.

[Sinfix_15]

Except, in this case, you're the irate customer who keeps trying to tell me your Monopoly money is just as legitimate as real currency.

http://cdn.business2community.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/michael-jordan-lol.gif

[.blank cd]

If you believe that, may I ask why you continue to debate him?

Take a look at his signature. There's no debate going on at all. You'd be mislead to believe otherwise. All that comes from his keyboard is "[INSERT CONSPIRACY THEORY HERE]!!!! WE MUST DETHRONE OUR NEGRO OVERLORD"

[Sinfix_15]

Take a look at his signature. There's no debate going on at all. You'd be mislead to believe otherwise. All that comes from his keyboard is "[INSERT CONSPIRACY THEORY HERE]!!!! WE MUST DETHRONE OUR NEGRO OVERLORD"

True to form and continuing to spout rhetoric. Usually you're too self righteous to play the race card though. Me posting news links of actual events taking place are not conspiracy theories. You refuse to see the truth because you want to support the black president, yet at the same time you hide behind the excuse that people are racist towards Obama. If skin color was an issue, Obama doesnt get elected.... everyone knew he was black... he couldnt hide that..... it's everything he did hide that makes people hate him.

[Sinfix_15]

but yeah......

look at my signature Blank....

"no ordinary american cares about their constitutional rights" - the person who swore to defend my constitutional rights.

oh that's right......

"dont pay attention to what they say" - BlankCD

[bu villain]

More people are killed by car crashes than firearms. That's an undisputable fact. Banning all forms of motorized transportation and going back to horses and wagons would reduce the amount of deaths far more than banning all privately owned firearms. If you want to pass laws to promote safety and prevent deaths, then look at where you can find the most gains.

Banning cars is not politically correct though, and banning firearms is an easier sale to the general public.

You misunderstand. The point is NOT simply to reduce as many deaths as possible, that's an oversimplification. If that was the goal, you would ban pools of water, ladders, and soap as I said in the last response.


When a person dies, their possession become part of their estate, which a living person is appointed as an executor or an administrator over. The estate functions with the same rights and responsibilities as a living individual until all assests have been distributed and the estate is dissolved. I've had to handle them before, and I am handling one currently.
So, yes, the Fourth Amendment, should apply to the living administrator/executor of the estate who is legally responsible for the assest that happens to be a firearm.

So what happens if a person bequeaths their gun to a felon?

[Elbow]

Why is there even still any debate on cars vs guns? lol

[Sinfix_15]

Why is there even still any debate on cars vs guns? lol

A gun control hearing happened this week....... in which your congressmen made the same comparisons. You think it's silly and insult me for making the comparison, yet the leaders of the free world are making the same comparison.

You honestly have no real answer to it, you just laugh it off.

[Sinfix_15]

You misunderstand. The point is NOT simply to reduce as many deaths as possible, that's an oversimplification. If that was the goal, you would ban pools of water, ladders, and soap as I said in the last response.

Doesnt stop the president from pandering though does it? "if we can save 1 life, then we have to try"




So what happens if a person bequeaths their gun to a felon?

Well, my own personal beliefs would make that a lot less likely to happen...... because felons would stay behind bars. What are the odds of me walking into a prison and selling my gun to an inmate? pretty slim. Think about the irony of the situation............. the possibility of me selling my gun to a felon is one of the major concerns anti-gun activists have. Why do we have so many felons walking the street to begin with?

[.blank cd]

A gun control hearing happened this week....... in which your congressmen made the same comparisons. You think it's silly and insult me for making the comparison, yet the leaders of the free world are making the same comparison.

You honestly have no real answer to it, you just laugh it off.

Everyone that made that comparison, I voted against.

[Sinfix_15]

Everyone that made that comparison, I voted against.

oh yeah......

you voted for the ones who want women to shit their pants if theyre being raped.

[.blank cd]

oh yeah......

you voted for the ones who want women to shit their pants if theyre being raped.

...Everyone

[Sinfix_15]

almost 700 posts and 4000+ views in and nobody can win this satirical argument.

[Elbow]

A gun control hearing happened this week....... in which your congressmen made the same comparisons. You think it's silly and insult me for making the comparison, yet the leaders of the free world are making the same comparison.

You honestly have no real answer to it, you just laugh it off.

I don't care WHO compared it, it's down right stupid. lol

[David88vert]

You misunderstand. The point is NOT simply to reduce as many deaths as possible, that's an oversimplification. If that was the goal, you would ban pools of water, ladders, and soap as I said in the last response.

Since the public declaration by the officials is that public safety is their top concern while they announce plans to restrict access to assault style weapons, what is the real motive, as you say it is not to reduce deaths?




So what happens if a person bequeaths their gun to a felon?

The felon cannot legally take possession of them, if his right to possess a firmarm has not been previously restored. Someone else can be designated to take possession, or the administrator/executor of the estate can choose to turn them over to the local authorities. That would be the choice of the estate though - and not a seizure. If for some reason the felon did take possession of the firearm(s), he would be committing a crime, which would happen to be a felony also.

[Sinfix_15]

I don't care WHO compared it, it's down right stupid. lol

That is kind of the point........ its meant to be. It's a "do you see how stupid this sounds" comparison. The unfortunate thing is that anti-gun activists dont seem to think their argument against guns is equally as stupid as this one. The car argument has equal merit.

They seek to ban guns based on the capability of doing harm. My assault rifles have never killed anyone, but they want to take them away simply because theyre capable of doing it.

Apply that argument to cars.... every car on the road is capable of breaking the law. Why make cars that are capable of exceeding the speed limit? Why give people the capability to break the law and put others in danger?

[.blank cd]

They seek to ban guns based on the capability of doing harm. My assault rifles have never killed anyone, but they want to take them away simply because theyre capable of doing it. What do you mean by "take them away?"

[Sinfix_15]

What do you mean by "take them away?"



Guns of Law-Abiding Husband Confiscated After Wife’s Single Voluntary Mental Health Visit | TheBlaze.com (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/12/calif-gun-owner-who-says-she-admitted-herself-to-mental-hospital-for-medication-adjustment-has-guns-confiscated/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=Share%20Buttons)

You insist that this will never happen, even though its already happening. Open your eyes child.......

[.blank cd]

Guns of Law-Abiding Husband Confiscated After Wife&rsquo;s Single Voluntary Mental Health Visit | TheBlaze.com (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/12/calif-gun-owner-who-says-she-admitted-herself-to-mental-hospital-for-medication-adjustment-has-guns-confiscated/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=Share%20Buttons)

You insist that this will never happen, even though its already happening. Open your eyes child.......

Are you a felon? Deemed mentally unstable? Charged with domestic violence?

[Sinfix_15]

Are you a felon? Deemed mentally unstable? Charged with domestic violence?

An 80 year old democratic senator wishes to make me a felon. Deemed mentally unstable? theyre going to be painting that one with a very broad brush. That same 80 year old democratic senator thinks anyone who has ever served in the military is mentally unstable.

[Sinfix_15]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NYI3MEhegvQ

BlankCD *supports* the 80 year old woman speaking in this video.

edit

[David88vert]

Are you a felon? Deemed mentally unstable? Charged with domestic violence?

With the list of possible side effects that drug companies list for all of their products, pretty much anyone that gets any prescription from a doctor could be declared "possibly mentally unstable" by a judge who has no medical or psychology degree. And that's just one way of being declared "mentally unstable".

Domestic violence is a wide umbrella that gets abused all the time now. Look at our divorce courts and you can see that.

If you are going to trample on someone's Constitutional rights, shouldn't you have some clear definitions as to when it should apply?

[David88vert]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NYI3MEhegvQ

BlankCD voted for the 80 year old woman speaking in this video.

I don't think that he lives in California.

[Sinfix_15]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=phGqNovnrlc

OMG listen to those crazy irrational republicans.....

they seem so logical.

[.blank cd]

With the list of possible side effects that drug companies list for all of their products, pretty much anyone that gets any prescription from a doctor could be declared "possibly mentally unstable" by a judge who has no medical or psychology degree. And that's just one way of being declared "mentally unstable".

Domestic violence is a wide umbrella that gets abused all the time now. Look at our divorce courts and you can see that.

If you are going to trample on someone's Constitutional rights, shouldn't you have some clear definitions as to when it should apply?

There's already a standard on what's mentally unstable. All it takes is a professional diagnosis.

[David88vert]

There's already a standard on what's mentally unstable. All it takes is a professional diagnosis.

Which is opinion, and does not necessary have any physically substantial evidence to support the opinion. That's an issue when you go to remove Constitutional rights from someone.

Should it be ok for a psychologist say that in their professional opinion, it is possible that someone might take drugs, therefore we should give them a urine test every week because they have the potential to take illegal drugs?

[bu villain]

Doesnt stop the president from pandering though does it? "if we can save 1 life, then we have to try"

Obviously the statement is hyperbolic but so is saying if they take away your 10 round clip that it will lead to complete disarming of the public and tyranny. If a policy can save 1 life it should be considered. That doesn't necessarily mean it should be enacted though.


Since the public declaration by the officials is that public safety is their top concern while they announce plans to restrict access to assault style weapons, what is the real motive, as you say it is not to reduce deaths?

Preventing death is the goal but it is not to the exclusion of all other rights or benefits that would be removed in the process. If we could prevent deaths without infringing on any rights and without any negative side effects, everyone would be on board. Unfortunately there are always tradeoffs and no politician wants to admit that death is acceptable. Car and gun legislation are exactly the same in that we must strike a balance between the benefits of allowing them and laws to mitigate their dangers. That is why we have drivers tests for cars and background checks for guns.


The felon cannot legally take possession of them, if his right to possess a firmarm has not been previously restored. Someone else can be designated to take possession, or the administrator/executor of the estate can choose to turn them over to the local authorities. That would be the choice of the estate though - and not a seizure. If for some reason the felon did take possession of the firearm(s), he would be committing a crime, which would happen to be a felony also.

Ah interesting. I didn't know the estate maintained the same rights as a living person. Is that true in all states? Inheritance laws are part of state law, not federal right? Is there something in the constitution that says an estate must be given all the rights of a person?

[David88vert]

Preventing death is the goal but it is not to the exclusion of all other rights or benefits that would be removed in the process. If we could prevent deaths without infringing on any rights and without any negative side effects, everyone would be on board. Unfortunately there are always tradeoffs and no politician wants to admit that death is acceptable. Car and gun legislation are exactly the same in that we must strike a balance between the benefits of allowing them and laws to mitigate their dangers. That is why we have drivers tests for cars and background checks for guns.

You're first statement was, "You misunderstand. The point is NOT simply to reduce as many deaths as possible, that's an oversimplification. If that was the goal, you would ban pools of water, ladders, and soap as I said in the last response." Now you say differently?




Ah interesting. I didn't know the estate maintained the same rights as a living person. Is that true in all states? Inheritance laws are part of state law, not federal right? Is there something in the constitution that says an estate must be given all the rights of a person?

State laws, not federal. I have looked at most other states laws. I would suspect that most are similar though on these affairs. There is nothing in the Constitution or the Amendments in regards to estate law, nor is that a subject that would normally be considered to be constitutional in nature.

[E36slide]

y'all do realize that none of you will ever prove the other wrong don't you?





Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2

[Sinfix_15]

y'all do realize that none of you will ever prove the other wrong don't you?





Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2

We proved the lefties wrong a long time ago and without much effort........

getting them to accept that theyre wrong..... now that could take a lifetime.

[.blank cd]

We proved the lefties wrong a long time ago and without much effort........

getting them to accept that theyre wrong..... now that could take a lifetime.

Lol

[Sinfix_15]

Obviously the statement is hyperbolic but so is saying if they take away your 10 round clip that it will lead to complete disarming of the public and tyranny. If a policy can save 1 life it should be considered. That doesn't necessarily mean it should be enacted though.


When we decide if a policy will save lives, do we emotionally go with what we think? or do we let facts reign supreme? because correct me if im wrong, but i dont see any facts supporting the idea that less guns equals less crime or that banning any specific gun type will make criminals any more or less effective when assaulting someone or that criminals will give a shit about the laws anyways. Am i more dangerous with a 30 round magazine or a backpack full of 10 round magazines? how many lives will that 2 second reload save? would a 2 second reload have saved any lives in any of the mass shooting situations?

Also.... is it just a really strange coincidence that the proposed gun control legislation is exactly what you would do if you wanted to gain a strategical military advantage over the "civilian army".

They want to
A: ban any ex military from owning a gun
B: ban the most "combat ready" weapons that happen to be the least used in crime
C: Gather information on the whereabouts and inventory of all gun owners.

Government purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammo for "homeland security" this year....
Theyre training on american soil in "urban environments" and giving a litmus test based around whether or not a soldier would accept an order to fire on american citizens.

[.blank cd]

Government purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammo for "homeland security" this year....
No, they didnt.

They wrote an OPEN purchase order for the ammunition.

Stop the tin-foil-hattery.

[Sinfix_15]

No, they didnt.

They wrote an OPEN purchase order for the ammunition.

Stop the tin-foil-hattery.

So, whats the difference between a purchase order and purchasing? please explain.

1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security? It's Time For A National Conversation - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/)

This is one of the problems with our current situation.... this government is so radical that people actually dont believe the stories because theyre too radical. It's a genius scheme.

[Elbow]

That is kind of the point........ its meant to be. It's a "do you see how stupid this sounds" comparison. The unfortunate thing is that anti-gun activists dont seem to think their argument against guns is equally as stupid as this one. The car argument has equal merit.

They seek to ban guns based on the capability of doing harm. My assault rifles have never killed anyone, but they want to take them away simply because theyre capable of doing it.

Apply that argument to cars.... every car on the road is capable of breaking the law. Why make cars that are capable of exceeding the speed limit? Why give people the capability to break the law and put others in danger?

I understand the car vs gun thing when it's only based on the potential of killing someone, but that's where it ends, with just that statement that both are capable of killing. The difference is though, a gun is a weapon, a car is a form of transportation that can kill if you use it as a weapon, but, it's not a weapon. Sure, you can argue that guns are also used for recreational use, which I get, I also get people collect guns and that not everyone who buys a gun will ever use it as a weapon. HOWEVER, it's not hard to see why some of the anti-gun people are more concerned about guns than cars.

There's no argument there and I'm more towards the gun side than anti-gun side. A car can be used to break the law just as a screwdriver can, my fist can, a knife can, etc. A gun sure does make it easier to do though without hurting myself and typically at a higher rate.

[.blank cd]

So, whats the difference between a purchase order and purchasing? please explain.

If you want to buy m&ms from me and I say I'll sell you 100 bags for X/bag, 1000 bags for X-1/bag, 10k bags for X-2/bag. And you say, we'll ill probably sell a lot more than that, what will you sell me 1mil bags for? Well I don't have 1mil bags, so I gotta figure out what it's gonna take me to get 1mil bags of m&ms

[David88vert]

If you want to buy m&ms from me and I say I'll sell you 100 bags for X/bag, 1000 bags for X-1/bag, 10k bags for X-2/bag. And you say, we'll ill probably sell a lot more than that, what will you sell me 1mil bags for? Well I don't have 1mil bags, so I gotta figure out what it's gonna take me to get 1mil bags of m&ms

Not a very clear explanation. You could have just copy and pasted this though, as it explains your point:

A purchase order (PO) is a commercial document issued by a buyer to a seller, indicating types, quantities, and agreed prices for products or services the seller will provide to the buyer. Sending a purchase order to a supplier constitutes a legal offer to buy products or services. Acceptance of a purchase order by a seller usually forms a contract between the buyer and seller, so no contract exists until the purchase order is accepted. It is used to control the purchasing of products and services from external suppliers.

The key is that no contract exists until both parties have agreed to the purchase order.

A purchase order shows intent and constitutes an offer, but it is not a binding contract in an of itself.

The real questions should be, "Why is DHS needing 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition that is not allowed to be used in war? And how is that not wasteful spending in our current economic situation.? Shouldn't that funding be put toward healthcare, welfare, and social security, as well as education?"

[.blank cd]

Not a very clear explanation. You could have just copy and pasted this though, as it explains your point:

A purchase order (PO) is a commercial document issued by a buyer to a seller, indicating types, quantities, and agreed prices for products or services the seller will provide to the buyer. Sending a purchase order to a supplier constitutes a legal offer to buy products or services. Acceptance of a purchase order by a seller usually forms a contract between the buyer and seller, so no contract exists until the purchase order is accepted. It is used to control the purchasing of products and services from external suppliers.

The key is that no contract exists until both parties have agreed to the purchase order.

A purchase order shows intent and constitutes an offer, but it is not a binding contract in an of itself.

The real questions should be, "Why is DHS needing 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition that is not allowed to be used in war? And how is that not wasteful spending in our current economic situation.? Shouldn't that funding be put toward healthcare, welfare, and social security, as well as education?"

I could have copy pasted that, but that doesn't tell the whole story, and honestly I hit send before I was finished. But companies use open purchase orders to negotiate bulk rates and shipping rates all the time. We do this at our job when new customers and returning customers want to order so many labels for their product. We work with Wrigley's, Hershey's, Baileys, and Frank's hot sauce, among others.

[bu villain]

You're first statement was, "You misunderstand. The point is NOT simply to reduce as many deaths as possible, that's an oversimplification. If that was the goal, you would ban pools of water, ladders, and soap as I said in the last response." Now you say differently?

No I'm still say the same thing, that preventing death is the main goal but how you do it is critically important. It is not prevent all death at any cost. I guess I'm not explaining the subtlety very well which is why you think I am contradicting myself.


State laws, not federal. I have looked at most other states laws. I would suspect that most are similar though on these affairs. There is nothing in the Constitution or the Amendments in regards to estate law, nor is that a subject that would normally be considered to be constitutional in nature.

That's what I was thinking so my point still stands. The right to pass down guns to heirs is not a fundamental human right. The fourth amendment only applies to persons and if the state doesn't define an estate as a "person" then I don't see why the fourth amendment has any say in that transaction. I understand many states do define estates as people currently, but there is no reason that can't change with a new law.

[Sinfix_15]

I understand the car vs gun thing when it's only based on the potential of killing someone, but that's where it ends, with just that statement that both are capable of killing. The difference is though, a gun is a weapon, a car is a form of transportation that can kill if you use it as a weapon, but, it's not a weapon. Sure, you can argue that guns are also used for recreational use, which I get, I also get people collect guns and that not everyone who buys a gun will ever use it as a weapon. HOWEVER, it's not hard to see why some of the anti-gun people are more concerned about guns than cars.

There's no argument there and I'm more towards the gun side than anti-gun side. A car can be used to break the law just as a screwdriver can, my fist can, a knife can, etc. A gun sure does make it easier to do though without hurting myself and typically at a higher rate.

I understand the reasons anti-gun people feel the way they feel, i still think theyre wrong. If you're going to attempt to strip half of the free world of one of their freedoms, then you need to have a more conclusive argument. The rule of thumb is not "innocent until looks guilty". This debate is emotion vs reality. The emotionally charged argument is " a guns base purpose is to kill a living thing " , the reality of it is that humans invented the gun because they already were killing other living things and simply made the next tool to assist with that. The absence of guns would not stop crime or murder. There's a very strong argument that the absence of guns would increase crime and murder. There's plenty of historical evidence of humanity using weapons as a deterrence of crime or being attacked. Humanity dictates the tools we require, the gun wasnt given to us, we created it. If you could snap your fingers and make every gun on earth evaporate.... i would have a house full of swords tomorrow. But, you cant snap your fingers and make guns evaporate. Even if they banned guns tomorrow. It would probably be 200 years before the gun supply became scarce, that is unless they start confiscating them. Go to your library and search history books for any point in history that any civilization willingly allowed themselves to be disarmed without resisting it. If you can find one, which i doubt you will..... i'm pretty sure that story is gonna end with whoever surrendered their weapons becoming the slaves of whoever asked them too.

[Sinfix_15]

No I'm still say the same thing, that preventing death is the main goal but how you do it is critically important. It is not prevent all death at any cost. I guess I'm not explaining the subtlety very well which is why you think I am contradicting myself.



That's what I was thinking so my point still stands. The right to pass down guns to heirs is not a fundamental human right. The fourth amendment only applies to persons and if the state doesn't define an estate as a "person" then I don't see why the fourth amendment has any say in that transaction. I understand many states do define estates as people currently, but there is no reason that can't change with a new law.

If the removal of guns from our society will save lives, why doesnt our government and police get rid of their guns to save lives?

[Sinfix_15]

If you want to buy m&ms from me and I say I'll sell you 100 bags for X/bag, 1000 bags for X-1/bag, 10k bags for X-2/bag. And you say, we'll ill probably sell a lot more than that, what will you sell me 1mil bags for? Well I don't have 1mil bags, so I gotta figure out what it's gonna take me to get 1mil bags of m&ms

ok, this changes my opinion about nothing. They either want to purchase X amount of ammo or theyre curious how much a shit ton of ammo would cost. You believe which ever one you want.

[bu villain]

When we decide if a policy will save lives, do we emotionally go with what we think? or do we let facts reign supreme? because correct me if im wrong, but i dont see any facts supporting the idea that less guns equals less crime or that banning any specific gun type will make criminals any more or less effective when assaulting someone or that criminals will give a shit about the laws anyways. Am i more dangerous with a 30 round magazine or a backpack full of 10 round magazines? how many lives will that 2 second reload save? would a 2 second reload have saved any lives in any of the mass shooting situations?

Ideally we go with facts and data, but the problem is we don't have conclusive facts or data on this topic so we have no choice but to venture into theoretical arguments. There are facts that support both sides, but none of them definitively prove one side or the other. The answer to your other questions is that we don't really know how many lives would be saved if we implement those laws. It could be 0 or it could be a lot more. When it comes to mass shootings, I don't think it's unreasonable to think a couple extra seconds during a reload could be enough time for someone to escape.


Also.... is it just a really strange coincidence that the proposed gun control legislation is exactly what you would do if you wanted to gain a strategical military advantage over the "civilian army".

They want to
A: ban any ex military from owning a gun
B: ban the most "combat ready" weapons that happen to be the least used in crime
C: Gather information on the whereabouts and inventory of all gun owners.

Government purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammo for "homeland security" this year....
Theyre training on american soil in "urban environments" and giving a litmus test based around whether or not a soldier would accept an order to fire on american citizens.

You say "they" but I don't know who "they" is. If "they" are the government, then I would say that many people in government do not want those things you listed. What is a reasonable amount of ammo for homeland security to purchase? What is strange about American troops training on American soil? Isn't that where most soldiers have always been trained? Of course, they are training in "urban environments". That's the environment where pretty much all the fighting has been since WW2. As far as shooting American citizens, it depends on the context. I would expect a soldier to shoot an American citizen if they were a terrorist sympathizer in the midst of carrying out an attack. None of these things lead me to believe we are in imminent danger of being subjugated.

[Sinfix_15]

Ideally we go with facts and data, but the problem is we don't have conclusive facts or data on this topic so we have no choice but to venture into theoretical arguments. There are facts that support both sides, but none of them definitively prove one side or the other. The answer to your other questions is that we don't really know how many lives would be saved if we implement those laws. It could be 0 or it could be a lot more. When it comes to mass shootings, I don't think it's unreasonable to think a couple extra seconds during a reload could be enough time for someone to escape.



You say "they" but I don't know who "they" is. If "they" are the government, then I would say that many people in government do not want those things you listed. What is a reasonable amount of ammo for homeland security to purchase? What is strange about American troops training on American soil? Isn't that where most soldiers have always been trained? Of course, they are training in "urban environments". That's the environment where pretty much all the fighting has been since WW2. As far as shooting American citizens, it depends on the context. I would expect a soldier to shoot an American citizen if they were a terrorist sympathizer in the midst of carrying out an attack. None of these things lead me to believe we are in imminent danger of being subjugated.

We dont need facts or data on what would happen if we ban guns because its never going to happen. It would be like me saying "lets collect data and see if re-enslaving black people would have a positive effect on america's crime rate" Whether it would or wouldnt is of no concern because its something we're not gonna stand for. The problem with the left is that they dont seem to understand that owning a weapon is a right they acknowledged that i already had, they didnt give it to me and theyre not going to take it from me unless they literally come take it. The left ignores the facts and data we do have and they campaign for public opinion supporting their agenda regardless of what the facts say or would say. They already lie about guns every opportunity they get. If we banned guns tomorrow and crime shot up 200% because of it.... democrats would still be happy that they accomplished their goal.


They can simulate an "urban environment", these tests are specifically based on the interaction with or presence of american citizens. They're not borrowing the city block of miami to simulate a city block, they training to simulate a city block filled with civilians.

[.blank cd]

ok, this changes my opinion about nothing. They either want to purchase X amount of ammo or theyre curious how much a shit ton of ammo would cost. You believe which ever one you want.

It can be both. They may want to purchase a billion over 20 years. They may want to try and lock the billion round rate for only 100 mil rounds. The point is, it means practically nothing.

[bu villain]

If the removal of guns from our society will save lives, why doesnt our government and police get rid of their guns to save lives?

The police and government are part of our society. When a citizen puts on a badge or a uniform, they do not cease to be an American citizen and are still every bit a part of our society. The idea being that guns are a useful tool and that they are most effectively used in the hands of those with much stricter training and more accountability (i.e., police and soldiers). It's not that different from why we wouldn't want everyone to have missile launch codes. The answer to your question can not be boiled down to a simple statement. There is a lot of nuance and complexity when discussing how available powerful and dangerous technology should be and who should have access to it.

[Sinfix_15]

The police and government are part of our society. When a citizen puts on a badge or a uniform, they do not cease to be an American citizen and are still every bit a part of our society. The idea being that guns are a useful tool and that they are most effectively used in the hands of those with much stricter training and more accountability (i.e., police and soldiers). It's not that different from why we wouldn't want everyone to have missile launch codes. The answer to your question can not be boiled down to a simple statement. There is a lot of nuance and complexity when discussing how available powerful and dangerous technology should be and who should have access to it.

In the history of earth, who has killed more innocent people.

A: Civilians with guns
B: Governments with guns

[Sinfix_15]

It can be both. They may want to purchase a billion over 20 years. They may want to try and lock the billion round rate for only 100 mil rounds. The point is, it means practically nothing.

Our government........... the united states government..............................


Obama's government....................


shopping for a better price.............










































































now you talkin crazy fool.

[bu villain]

We dont need facts or data on what would happen if we ban guns because its never going to happen. It would be like me saying "lets collect data and see if re-enslaving black people would have a positive effect on america's crime rate" Whether it would or wouldnt is of no concern because its something we're not gonna stand for. The problem with the left is that they dont seem to understand that owning a weapon is a right they acknowledged that i already had, they didnt give it to me and theyre not going to take it from me unless they literally come take it. The left ignores the facts and data we do have and they campaign for public opinion supporting their agenda regardless of what the facts say or would say. They already lie about guns every opportunity they get. If we banned guns tomorrow and crime shot up 200% because of it.... democrats would still be happy that they accomplished their goal.

Sorry, I can't agree with your premise that a large part of the country you call "the left" is out to take away all guns. I agree even less that they wouldn't care if crime shot up 200%. Forget the philosophy for a moment and accept that in reality, your rights in this country come from the constitution and they can always be changed through the amendment process. You mention slavery but black's God given right to life and liberty didn't provide a lot of solace to them before the 13th amendment was passed.


They can simulate an "urban environment", these tests are specifically based on the interaction with or presence of american citizens. They're not borrowing the city block of miami to simulate a city block, they training to simulate a city block filled with civilians.

So you don't believe we should be prepared to fight on our own soil? It is conceivable to you that we will have a government vs citizen civil war but not that we have to fight foreign enemies on our soil?

[bu villain]

In the history of earth, who has killed more innocent people.

A: Civilians with guns
B: Governments with guns

C. People with guns. You keep creating false dichotomies. The world should not simply be divided into people who work in government and those who don't. Why should a democratic government be compared to a dictatorship in this context? You are taking a complex issue and trying to simplify it so much that it no longer resembles the reality.

[Sinfix_15]

Sorry, I can't agree with your premise that a large part of the country you call "the left" is out to take away all guns. I agree even less that they wouldn't care if crime shot up 200%. Forget the philosophy for a moment and accept that in reality, your rights in this country come from the constitution and they can always be changed through the amendment process. You mention slavery but black's God given right to life and liberty didn't provide a lot of solace to them before the 13th amendment was passed. The constitution acknowledges and protects the rights that i have. It did not and does not give me rights. The government is a representation of a free civilization. They are essentially an employee. Black people were always free.... the american government didnt give black people their freedom, they just acknowledged the freedom they already had a lot slower than they should have. Something that might have been expedited if every black person was armed and capable of defending themselves.

Slavery is a good example of what a government is capable of when they have too much power and no threat of resistance from it's people.




So you don't believe we should be prepared to fight on our own soil? It is conceivable to you that we will have a government vs citizen civil war but not that we have to fight foreign enemies on our soil?

What part of disarming citizens gives a strategical advantage over foreign invasion?

[Sinfix_15]

C. People with guns. You keep creating false dichotomies. The world should not simply be divided into people who work in government and those who don't. Why should a democratic government be compared to a dictatorship in this context? You are taking a complex issue and trying to simplify it so much that it no longer resembles the reality.

Given the options i gave you.... answer the question.

[Sinfix_15]

Its a clear question with precise intent. I specified INNOCENT people.

Who has killed more INNOCENT people who were NOT in combat... NOT part of any army and NOT fighting back.......

A: Civilians with guns..... civilians including every criminal who has ever walked the face of this planet.
B: Governments with guns.

[Sinfix_15]

You say i shouldnt lump dictatorships in with democratic governments, what prevents a democracy from becoming a dictatorship?

[.blank cd]

You say i shouldnt lump dictatorships in with democratic governments, what prevents a democracy from becoming a dictatorship?

Checks and balances

[Sinfix_15]

Checks and balances

http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/1885590/2/stock-photo-1885590-rose-colored-glasses.jpg

[.blank cd]

You asked. That's the answer.

[bu villain]

The constitution acknowledges and protects the rights that i have. It did not and does not give me rights. The government is a representation of a free civilization. They are essentially an employee. Black people were always free.... the american government didnt give black people their freedom, they just acknowledged the freedom they already had a lot slower than they should have. Something that might have been expedited if every black person was armed and capable of defending themselves.

You're playing word games now. Having "a right to be free" didn't stop them from being enslaved. Having a "right" is meaningless unless it's enforced in reality. If you don't think our constitution is important for enforcing your rights, then who cares what is in it at all?


Slavery is a good example of what a government is capable of when they have too much power and no threat of resistance from it's people.

The government didn't create slavery and it only ended it with the support of the people.



What part of disarming citizens gives a strategical advantage over foreign invasion?

I never said anything about disarming citizens having anything to do with foreign invasion. We don't rely on our average citizens to fight foreign invaders. That's what the standing army is for. You are taking two separate issues (disarmament and soldier training programs) and making them one issue now. I still don't see what one has to do with the other.

[bu villain]

You say i shouldnt lump dictatorships in with democratic governments, what prevents a democracy from becoming a dictatorship?


Checks and balances


http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/1885590/2/stock-photo-1885590-rose-colored-glasses.jpg

For someone who holds the second amendment so dear, you sure don't seem to think much of the rest of the constitution.

[.blank cd]

For someone who holds the second amendment so dear, you sure don't seem to think much of the rest of the constitution.

"Ordinary Americans don't care about their constitutional rights" -Biden

Sinfix is just an ordinary american.

[.blank cd]

The constitution acknowledges and protects the rights that i have. It did not and does not give me rights. The government is a representation of a free civilization. They are essentially an employee. Black people were always free.... the american government didnt give black people their freedom, they just acknowledged the freedom they already had a lot slower than they should have. Something that might have been expedited if every black person was armed and capable of defending themselves.

Slavery is a good example of what a government is capable of when they have too much power and no threat of resistance from it's people.What? What school did you take history classes at?


What part of disarming citizens gives a strategical advantage over foreign invasion?Citizens will never ever have a strategic advantage over the military. Not ever in the United States anyway. No modification to the 2nd amendment will change that. Ever.

[Sinfix_15]

You're playing word games now. Having "a right to be free" didn't stop them from being enslaved. Having a "right" is meaningless unless it's enforced in reality. If you don't think our constitution is important for enforcing your rights, then who cares what is in it at all?

By what means is the constitution enforced? literally.... what do we use to enforce any law, any where?


I never said anything about disarming citizens having anything to do with foreign invasion. We don't rely on our average citizens to fight foreign invaders. That's what the standing army is for. You are taking two separate issues (disarmament and soldier training programs) and making them one issue now. I still don't see what one has to do with the other.

I made a link between their actions. That link was that theyre all "strategical advantages" in a theoretical "military vs civilian" conflict. It wasnt a part of my core argument, it was simply a "this looks fishy" comment.

[Sinfix_15]

What? What school did you take history classes at?

Citizens will never ever have a strategic advantage over the military. Not ever in the United States anyway. No modification to the 2nd amendment will change that. Ever.

The united states is the only place where citizens do have an advantage over the military, because our military upholds the value of it's people. Unlike Syria where if the leader said "drop a bomb on that hospital" and it would get done, if a politician gave a marine that same order he would probably turn and fire on the politician. You're looking at it like it's a football game and one team vs the other..... the military would divide in this type of conflict.

The things that make america, america... are the things Obama seems to disagree with.

[Sinfix_15]

For someone who holds the second amendment so dear, you sure don't seem to think much of the rest of the constitution.

i fail to see how you come to this conclusion.

[bu villain]

By what means is the constitution enforced? literally.... what do we use to enforce any law, any where?

The constitution is enforced by the courts.


I made a link between their actions. That link was that theyre all "strategical advantages" in a theoretical "military vs civilian" conflict. It wasnt a part of my core argument, it was simply a "this looks fishy" comment.

Every bit of training and new technology the military does would give a "strategical advantage" in such a theoretical conflict. "This looks fishy" is a long way from a convincing argument that we are in any sort of danger of being enslaved by our government. There are enough issues to argue about already, can we just keep such wild speculation out of it.


i fail to see how you come to this conclusion.

You scoffed at the idea that the checks and balances in the constitution are what keeps us from becoming a dictatorship. Since they are a major part of the constitution and you feel they are of minimal value, that led me to believe you don't hold much of the constitution in high regard. Feel free to correct which part I have wrong.

[Sinfix_15]

You scoffed at the idea that the checks and balances in the constitution are what keeps us from becoming a dictatorship. Since they are a major part of the constitution and you feel they are of minimal value, that led me to believe you don't hold much of the constitution in high regard. Feel free to correct which part I have wrong.

I understand the purpose by design, that doesnt mean it's flawless. Obamacare happened.... patriot act happened.... domestic drones happened....

[bu villain]

I understand the purpose by design, that doesnt mean it's flawless. Obamacare happened.... patriot act happened.... domestic drones happened....

I agree there are some questionable interpretations of constitutional powers out there, but overall the document still is the basis for the rules of our society. Laws are regularly overturned as unconstitutional and no longer enforced because of it. If not the constitution, what do you think prevents our democracy from becoming a dictatorship? I honestly don't think the second amendment is very high on that list right now.

[Sinfix_15]

I agree there are some questionable interpretations of constitutional powers out there, but overall the document still is the basis for the rules of our society. Laws are regularly overturned as unconstitutional and no longer enforced because of it. If not the constitution, what do you think prevents our democracy from becoming a dictatorship? I honestly don't think the second amendment is very high on that list right now.

The constitution can only protect us if we let it. A lock on your front door doesnt protect you if the person behind it convinces you to open up and let them in. Obama isnt kicking the door down...... but he's talking people into unlocking their doors.

[BanginJimmy]

I agree there are some questionable interpretations of constitutional powers out there, but overall the document still is the basis for the rules of our society. Laws are regularly overturned as unconstitutional and no longer enforced because of it. If not the constitution, what do you think prevents our democracy from becoming a dictatorship? I honestly don't think the second amendment is very high on that list right now.

1, we are not a democracy, we are a republic. Too many people, especially those in DC, have forgotten the difference.

2, the Constitution has been so heavily eroded by the SCOTUS that it is almost meaningless. Just look at the Commerce Clause. With as much as that has been expanded, Congress has the power right now to pass a law saying that you MUST own a vehicle that gets 30mpg, or you pay a 'tax'. That president has already been established with Obamacare. The SCOTUS has even pushed their power so far as they now decide what those that draft a bill want to do. Remember for 2 years we heard the people that write, voted for and signed Obaamcare into law say the fine was a fine, not a tax, yet the SCOTUS said it was a tax.


I would say it is time to get together and draft a new Constitution, but the people that would write it dont have the character to actually do it in a way that is best for the country. It would simply be piece of partisan trash.

[Sinfix_15]

I would say it is time to get together and draft a new Constitution, but the people that would write it dont have the character to actually do it in a way that is best for the country. It would simply be piece of partisan trash.

We may have a new constitution before its over....... The constitution of the united nations.

[Sinfix_15]

NJ Mother Pressured to Turn Over Her Guns, Charged With ‘Terroristic Threats’ After Reading the Constitution at Tax Dispute Assembly | TheBlaze.com (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/12/nj-mother-forced-to-turn-over-her-guns-charged-with-terroristic-threats-after-reading-the-constitution-at-tax-dispute-assembly/#)

[bu villain]

The constitution can only protect us if we let it. A lock on your front door doesnt protect you if the person behind it convinces you to open up and let them in. Obama isnt kicking the door down...... but he's talking people into unlocking their doors.

Of course the constitution takes a back seat to the will of the people, as it should. The constitution exists to serve the people, not the other way around. If the people decide they want to "unlock their doors", that is their right. Although I think it should be done through the proper channels (i.e., the amendment process).


1, we are not a democracy, we are a republic. Too many people, especially those in DC, have forgotten the difference.

Why is this an important distinction? Either way, the power rests with the people.


2, the Constitution has been so heavily eroded by the SCOTUS that it is almost meaningless. Just look at the Commerce Clause. With as much as that has been expanded, Congress has the power right now to pass a law saying that you MUST own a vehicle that gets 30mpg, or you pay a 'tax'. That president has already been established with Obamacare. The SCOTUS has even pushed their power so far as they now decide what those that draft a bill want to do. Remember for 2 years we heard the people that write, voted for and signed Obaamcare into law say the fine was a fine, not a tax, yet the SCOTUS said it was a tax.

I don't disagree that the constitutional lines have been blurred but Sinflix was arguing about the sanctity of the second amendment while simultaneously saying the constitutional system of checks and balances didn't mean much. He was also implying there wasn't much to keep us from becoming a dictatorship but yet, Obamacare did have to be passed through the congress (with 60 senate votes no less). You may not agree with the SCOTUS decision (I don't either) but we abide by their ruling either way. How many dictators have to go through that sort of process to pass a healthcare law? Checks and balances don't mean we get everything right, it simply means no single group gets too much power. That system still seems alive and well to me.

[Sinfix_15]

Of course the constitution takes a back seat to the will of the people, as it should. The constitution exists to serve the people, not the other way around. If the people decide they want to "unlock their doors", that is their right. Although I think it should be done through the proper channels (i.e., the amendment process).


So if 51% of people want to "unlock their doors" then the other 49% should be forced to?

[Echonova]

Feinstein's Assault Weapons Ban All But Dead | Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/feinstein-assault-weapons-ban-gop-dead)

[bu villain]

So if 51% of people want to "unlock their doors" then the other 49% should be forced to?

I believe the amendment requires approval by 2/3 of house and senate and ratification by 3/4 the states. There is also the much less used constitutional convention method. Of course we could theoretically pass an amendment that makes it 51% of the popular vote. Either way, the constitution is changeable by design.

[Sinfix_15]

Feinstein's Assault Weapons Ban All But Dead | Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/feinstein-assault-weapons-ban-gop-dead)

As talks of UN treaty restart.

[Elbow]

I really hope she can persuade more people to join in, we need these weapons off the streets honestly.

[Sinfix_15]

I really hope she can persuade more people to join in, we need these weapons off the streets honestly.

Yeah, i feel much safer as an american citizen knowing that an 80 year woman who is probably wearing a diaper when she speaks on the floor is still valiantly seeking to push her unconstitutional policies. We need an age limit on our representatives to keep from having another senile old bat like her.

Dear family of Dianne Feinstein, please have your mother put in a nursing home.

[Elbow]

Yeah, i feel much safer as an american citizen knowing that an 80 year woman who is probably wearing a diaper when she speaks on the floor is still valiantly seeking to push her unconstitutional policies. We need an age limit on our representatives to keep from having another senile old bat like her.

Dear family of Dianne Feinstein, please have your mother put in a nursing home.

How dare you speak like that to someone that serves their country with such a patriotic mindset. Unconstitutional? Owning assault weapons to kill your fellow citizens is unconstitutional and un-American.