The Conservative Case For Gun Control

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    Putting criminal thugs in jail  prevents gun violence.

     



    No, it really doesn't.

     

    It creates a criminal culture that is MORE likely to use guns in crime than they were before.

     

    gun violence in prisons is well known of course...

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    It amazes me how often the left goes to the gun control well, trying to convince us that they need to probe legal gun openers, limit types of guns for our own good, while completely ignoring illegal gun owners.

    something tells me this is more about effectively eliminating our rights to protect ourselves than this supposed need for legal gun owners to prove their legality in the face of no probable cause.

     



    Nobody is ignoring illegal gun owners...unless you count the reductions in police at the local level due to lack of public funding.

     

    The 'right to protect ourselves' ultimately precludes owning a gun.  There are laws about how to protect oneself while using a gun.

    How else for legal gun owners to prove themselves legal but to check in with law enforcement?  

     



    How about presumed legal, as the 2namendment indicate?

     

    look, you want your gun control, repeal the 2nd amendment, fair and square, and stop trying to hobble legal gun owners.

    if you really wanted to do something about gun violence, you would do a house to house search on the soth chide of Chicago and take every gun found.

    but, instead, you turn to make it more difficult for women to defend themselves against rapists, for example.



    Are those "legitimate rapists" or not?  Sometimes it's hard to tell with you conservatives....

    It's not me making the case.  I own guns myself.  But I also have nothing to hide and am not inconvenienced by my town's police knowing it.  Those that do have something to hide are the ones we should worry about.

    This is about the Supreme Court making ITS case and newbie, dimwitted senators getting confused about what the constitution actually says.

    But if you really think that there is a legitimate reason to stockpile automatic weapons and reams of ammo, then I can't really help you.  You've fallen down the rabbit hole.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    You're not paying attention. If it was LEGALLY purchased (which is what i posted...but you know that) then it doesn't matter. Are fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks and drones legal to purchase? No they are not. I was referring to LEGALLY purchased firearms. 

     




     

    I'm not paying attention? Or perhaps the problem is you aren't applying logic properly.

    Your rhetorical question leads to the conclusion that "fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks" SHOULD be legal to purchase.

    Um...no...it doesn't. Not even remotely close. Law abiding citizens buy LEGAL guns. The things you mentioned are not legal to buy. Therefore any citizen who LEGALLY buys a weapon is no ones goddamn business. 

    That's why you need to add more to your position for it to make any sense.

    Um...it was YOU who brought up tanks and flame throwers not me,

    Facepalm.




     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     


    Sure Mr Attorney, so the second amendment does not protect, " an INDIVIDUAL right, unconnected with service in a militia

     




     

    Why be such a smartazz? Or do you really just plain not get it?


    Scalia said there is an INDIVIDUAL (if caps help) right to be arms. As Matty pointed out, he ALSO said that that INDIVIDUAL right is not unlimited and that there are valid restrictions:

     

    'nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.'

    The ruling also allows limitations on ownership of 'dangerous and unusual' weapons that are not in 'common use' — like, for example, assault weapons. (And military-style weapons).

     

     

     

    Waving around "INDIVIDUAL right", as if it somehow undermines that point, simply doesn't.

     

     



    Apparently waving that right around Washington D.C., where the Heller decision recognized right individual right, has caused the murder rate to plummet.

    strange things happen when people's rights are not infringed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    Your rhetorical question leads to the conclusion that "fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks" SHOULD be legal to purchase.

    Um...no...it doesn't. Not even remotely close. Law abiding citizens buy LEGAL guns. The things you mentioned are not legal to buy. Therefore any citizen who LEGALLY buys a weapon is no ones goddamn business. 

     



    Holy crap dude.

     


    Read slowly; reread caps: The fact that they are LEGAL has no bearing whatsoever on whether they SHOULD BE LEGAL.

     

     



    What does that have to do with my original post? The answer is nothing. My post had nothing to do with whether or not a gun should or shouldn't be legal. It did however have to do with legally purchased guns being no one elses business. You then jumped into the conversation spouting off something about flame throwers being legal. Seriously get a clue. 

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    It amazes me how often the left goes to the gun control well, trying to convince us that they need to probe legal gun openers, limit types of guns for our own good, while completely ignoring illegal gun owners.

    something tells me this is more about effectively eliminating our rights to protect ourselves than this supposed need for legal gun owners to prove their legality in the face of no probable cause.

     



    Nobody is ignoring illegal gun owners...unless you count the reductions in police at the local level due to lack of public funding.

     

    The 'right to protect ourselves' ultimately precludes owning a gun.  There are laws about how to protect oneself while using a gun.

    How else for legal gun owners to prove themselves legal but to check in with law enforcement?  

     



    How about presumed legal, as the 2namendment indicate?

     

    look, you want your gun control, repeal the 2nd amendment, fair and square, and stop trying to hobble legal gun owners.

    if you really wanted to do something about gun violence, you would do a house to house search on the soth chide of Chicago and take every gun found.

    but, instead, you turn to make it more difficult for women to defend themselves against rapists, for example.



    You are talking nonsense.  The 2nd Amendment is not going to be repealed nor is anyone in authority advocating it.  A house to house search is totally illegal and only you are suggesting such a thing.  And you think there is no gun violence problem in America.  All these are equally absurd thoughts.  Background checks and eliminating especially dangerous weapons are clearly legal under Heller.  Time to live in the real world and not your bizarre fantasy.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    You're not paying attention. If it was LEGALLY purchased (which is what i posted...but you know that) then it doesn't matter. Are fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks and drones legal to purchase? No they are not. I was referring to LEGALLY purchased firearms. 

     




     

    I'm not paying attention? Or perhaps the problem is you aren't applying logic properly.

    Your rhetorical question leads to the conclusion that "fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks" SHOULD be legal to purchase.

    Um...no...it doesn't. Not even remotely close. Law abiding citizens buy LEGAL guns. The things you mentioned are not legal to buy. Therefore any citizen who LEGALLY buys a weapon is no ones goddamn business. 

    That's why you need to add more to your position for it to make any sense.

    Um...it was YOU who brought up tanks and flame throwers not me,

    Facepalm.



    We decide what weapon is too dangerous for an individual to have legally.  That list has been changed as technology has changed.  Machine guns today.  Assault weapons hopefully tomorrow.  And Heller supports such a limitation on the right.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BilltheKat. Show BilltheKat's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    You're not paying attention. If it was LEGALLY purchased (which is what i posted...but you know that) then it doesn't matter. Are fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks and drones legal to purchase? No they are not. I was referring to LEGALLY purchased firearms. 

     




     

    I'm not paying attention? Or perhaps the problem is you aren't applying logic properly.

    Your rhetorical question leads to the conclusion that "fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks" SHOULD be legal to purchase.

    Um...no...it doesn't. Not even remotely close.c

    That's why you need to add more to your position for it to make any sense.

    Um...it was YOU who brought up tanks and flame throwers not me,

    Facepalm.

     




     

     



     Law abiding citizens buy LEGAL guns. The things you mentioned are not legal to buy. Therefore any citizen who LEGALLY buys a weapon is no ones goddamn business. 

     

     

     

    There's a bunch of parents of six yr olds on Newtown Conn. who may disagree and want to ban some of those LEGALLY bought weapons.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    You're not paying attention. If it was LEGALLY purchased (which is what i posted...but you know that) then it doesn't matter. Are fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks and drones legal to purchase? No they are not. I was referring to LEGALLY purchased firearms. 

     




     

    I'm not paying attention? Or perhaps the problem is you aren't applying logic properly.

    Your rhetorical question leads to the conclusion that "fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks" SHOULD be legal to purchase.

    Um...no...it doesn't. Not even remotely close. Law abiding citizens buy LEGAL guns. The things you mentioned are not legal to buy. Therefore any citizen who LEGALLY buys a weapon is no ones goddamn business. 

    That's why you need to add more to your position for it to make any sense.

    Um...it was YOU who brought up tanks and flame throwers not me,

    Facepalm.

     



    We decide what weapon is too dangerous for an individual to have legally.  That list has been changed as technology has changed.  Machine guns today.  Assault weapons hopefully tomorrow.  And Heller supports such a limitation on the right.

     



    Try to follow what I post instead of what you think I'm posting. It will help tremendously.

    my argument is that RIGHT now..anyone who has LEGALLY purchased a gun shouldn't have to tell you or anyone else what it is or how many of them they have. the only entity that should know is the authorized dealer the person bought the gun from as they will have the paperwork on file. 

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    You're not paying attention. If it was LEGALLY purchased (which is what i posted...but you know that) then it doesn't matter. Are fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks and drones legal to purchase? No they are not. I was referring to LEGALLY purchased firearms. 

     




     

    I'm not paying attention? Or perhaps the problem is you aren't applying logic properly.

    Your rhetorical question leads to the conclusion that "fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks" SHOULD be legal to purchase.

    Um...no...it doesn't. Not even remotely close.c

    That's why you need to add more to your position for it to make any sense.

    Um...it was YOU who brought up tanks and flame throwers not me,

    Facepalm.

     




     

     



     Law abiding citizens buy LEGAL guns. The things you mentioned are not legal to buy. Therefore any citizen who LEGALLY buys a weapon is no ones goddamn business. 

     

     

     

    There's a bunch of parents of six yr olds on Newtown Conn. who may disagree and want to ban some of those LEGALLY bought weapons.



    omg...what is wrong with you people today? Wasn't taking about banning. None of my posts did I talk about whether certain guns should be banned or not. 

    Let me try to make this a bit more simple for you guy. the issue I was talking about was whether for not you have a right to know what kind or how many LEGALLY bought firearms someone has. That has NOTHING to do with banning or not banning. 

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:


    Nice try!

    Liberals want to take the small crack of Scalia's remarks on 'dangerous and unusual' weapons, and drive a bulldozer through it.

    By claiming ,

    a) 'dangerous and unusual weapons' include 'assault weapons',

    and then


    b) defining just about all weapons as 'assault weapons'.

    Bingo! take away all guns. That was easy.

     

    Also, Scalia is listing laws that would be constitutional:
    "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings..."

    Such laws banning guns in "schools" are no doubt constitutional, but in practice may be found to be stupid and counterproductive, and subject to repeal.



    Aren't all fire arms dangerous?  What would be the point of a benign firearm?

    that was easy.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     


    Nice try!

    Liberals want to take the small crack of Scalia's remarks on 'dangerous and unusual' weapons, and drive a bulldozer through it.

    By claiming ,

    a) 'dangerous and unusual weapons' include 'assault weapons',

    and then


    b) defining just about all weapons as 'assault weapons'.

    Bingo! take away all guns. That was easy.

     

    Also, Scalia is listing laws that would be constitutional:
    "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings..."

    Such laws banning guns in "schools" are no doubt constitutional, but in practice may be found to be stupid and counterproductive, and subject to repeal.

     



    Aren't all fire arms dangerous?  What would be the point of a benign firearm?

     

    that was easy.



    Firearms by themselves are not dangerous. Not once did any of my dads guns get out of his gun safe and fire themselves off. 

    That was easy.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    You're not paying attention. If it was LEGALLY purchased (which is what i posted...but you know that) then it doesn't matter. Are fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks and drones legal to purchase? No they are not. I was referring to LEGALLY purchased firearms. 

     




     

    I'm not paying attention? Or perhaps the problem is you aren't applying logic properly.

    Your rhetorical question leads to the conclusion that "fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks" SHOULD be legal to purchase.

    Um...no...it doesn't. Not even remotely close. Law abiding citizens buy LEGAL guns. The things you mentioned are not legal to buy. Therefore any citizen who LEGALLY buys a weapon is no ones goddamn business. 

    That's why you need to add more to your position for it to make any sense.

    Um...it was YOU who brought up tanks and flame throwers not me,

    Facepalm.

     



    We decide what weapon is too dangerous for an individual to have legally.  That list has been changed as technology has changed.  Machine guns today.  Assault weapons hopefully tomorrow.  And Heller supports such a limitation on the right.

     

     



    Try to follow what I post instead of what you think I'm posting. It will help tremendously.

     

    my argument is that RIGHT now..anyone who has LEGALLY purchased a gun shouldn't have to tell you or anyone else what it is or how many of them they have. the only entity that should know is the authorized dealer the person bought the gun from as they will have the paperwork on file. 

     



    We register the rather benign motor vehicle the opurpose of which is merely transportation.  I think registering guns whose purpose is far more dangerous makes perfect sense.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     


    Nice try!

    Liberals want to take the small crack of Scalia's remarks on 'dangerous and unusual' weapons, and drive a bulldozer through it.

    By claiming ,

    a) 'dangerous and unusual weapons' include 'assault weapons',

    and then


    b) defining just about all weapons as 'assault weapons'.

    Bingo! take away all guns. That was easy.

     

    Also, Scalia is listing laws that would be constitutional:
    "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings..."

    Such laws banning guns in "schools" are no doubt constitutional, but in practice may be found to be stupid and counterproductive, and subject to repeal.

     



    Aren't all fire arms dangerous?  What would be the point of a benign firearm?

     

    that was easy.

     



    Firearms by themselves are not dangerous. Not once did any of my dads guns get out of his gun safe and fire themselves off. 

     

    That was easy.

     



    Worlds dumbest post.

    your dad kept his guns in a safe because the guns weren't dangerous?  if they werent dangerous, then why did your dad keep them a safe?  

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     


    Nice try!

    Liberals want to take the small crack of Scalia's remarks on 'dangerous and unusual' weapons, and drive a bulldozer through it.

    By claiming ,

    a) 'dangerous and unusual weapons' include 'assault weapons',

    and then


    b) defining just about all weapons as 'assault weapons'.

    Bingo! take away all guns. That was easy.

     

    Also, Scalia is listing laws that would be constitutional:
    "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings..."

    Such laws banning guns in "schools" are no doubt constitutional, but in practice may be found to be stupid and counterproductive, and subject to repeal.

     



    Aren't all fire arms dangerous?  What would be the point of a benign firearm?

     

    that was easy.

     



    Firearms by themselves are not dangerous. Not once did any of my dads guns get out of his gun safe and fire themselves off. 

     

    That was easy.

     

     



    Worlds dumbest post.

     

    your dad kept his guns in a safe because the guns weren't dangerous?  if they werent dangerous, then why did your dad keep them a safe?  

     

    He kept them in a safe because kids shouldn't  be able to get their hands on guns....just like kids aren't allowed to get behind the wheel of a car or drink alcohol. Many parents lock their liquor cabinet. They also lock their cars.

    Oh and another reason for locking guns up...prevents theft of said guns if house is robbed.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     


    Nice try!

    Liberals want to take the small crack of Scalia's remarks on 'dangerous and unusual' weapons, and drive a bulldozer through it.

    By claiming ,

    a) 'dangerous and unusual weapons' include 'assault weapons',

    and then


    b) defining just about all weapons as 'assault weapons'.

    Bingo! take away all guns. That was easy.

     

    Also, Scalia is listing laws that would be constitutional:
    "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings..."

    Such laws banning guns in "schools" are no doubt constitutional, but in practice may be found to be stupid and counterproductive, and subject to repeal.

     



    Aren't all fire arms dangerous?  What would be the point of a benign firearm?

     

    that was easy.

     



    Firearms by themselves are not dangerous. Not once did any of my dads guns get out of his gun safe and fire themselves off. 

     

    That was easy.

     

     



    Worlds dumbest post.

     

    your dad kept his guns in a safe because the guns weren't dangerous?  if they werent dangerous, then why did your dad keep them a safe?  

     

     

     

    He kept them in a safe because kids shouldn't  be able to get their hands on guns....just like kids aren't allowed to get behind the wheel of a car or drink alcohol. Many parents lock their liquor cabinet. They also lock their cars.

    Oh and another reason for locking guns up...prevents theft of said guns if house is robbed.

     



    So they are dangerous and should be locked up otherwise people will misuse them.  Thanks for clarifying.

    Now perhaps you will realize that some guns are too inherently dangerous to be possessed at all.

    Lanza fired 152 bullets in five minutes and decimated a school.  If he had been restricted to ten shots instead of thirty some of those kids could be alive.  If he didn't have that assault weapon some of those kids could be alive.  The right to life of those children is worth more than the right to this type of property. No right is unlimited.  This kind of weapon is the child porn of the 2nd Amendment.  

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     


    So they are dangerous and should be locked up otherwise people will misuse them.  Thanks for clarifying.

    It's the person that makes them dangerous. Just like its the person who makes a car dangerous, however by themselves guor and cars are not dangerous. 

    Now perhaps you will realize that some guns are too inherently dangerous to be possessed at all.

    Lanza fired 152 bullets in five minutes and decimated a school.  If he had been restricted to ten shots instead of thirty some of those kids could be alive.  If he didn't have that assault weapon some of those kids could be alive.

    Really? Tell that to the relatives of the THIRTY THREE people who were killed by a 9 mm handgun At Virginia Tech shooting. An AR-15 isn't needed to kill scores of people. It takes less than three seconds to drop a clip and pop another one in. As in the case at V Tech, the shooter had 10 round magazines that he kept popping in to kill the 33 and wound another 23. 

    If you so concerned then shouldn't we ban 9 mm handguns too?

     

     

     




     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    You're not paying attention. If it was LEGALLY purchased (which is what i posted...but you know that) then it doesn't matter. Are fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks and drones legal to purchase? No they are not. I was referring to LEGALLY purchased firearms. 

     




     

    I'm not paying attention? Or perhaps the problem is you aren't applying logic properly.

    Your rhetorical question leads to the conclusion that "fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks" SHOULD be legal to purchase.

    Um...no...it doesn't. Not even remotely close. Law abiding citizens buy LEGAL guns. The things you mentioned are not legal to buy. Therefore any citizen who LEGALLY buys a weapon is no ones goddamn business. 

    That's why you need to add more to your position for it to make any sense.

    Um...it was YOU who brought up tanks and flame throwers not me,

    Facepalm.

     



    We decide what weapon is too dangerous for an individual to have legally.  That list has been changed as technology has changed.  Machine guns today.  Assault weapons hopefully tomorrow.  And Heller supports such a limitation on the right.

     

     



    Try to follow what I post instead of what you think I'm posting. It will help tremendously.

     

    my argument is that RIGHT now..anyone who has LEGALLY purchased a gun shouldn't have to tell you or anyone else what it is or how many of them they have. the only entity that should know is the authorized dealer the person bought the gun from as they will have the paperwork on file. 

     

     



    We register the rather benign motor vehicle the opurpose of which is merely transportation.  I think registering guns whose purpose is far more dangerous makes perfect sense.

     

     




    I hear you.  guns are dangerous.  they are also useful.  Violent crime is down in D.C. since Heller.  also, read the Cato institute:

     

    Researchers at the Cato Institute have reviewed eight years worth of news reports about shooting in self-defense and conclude, "the vast majority of gun owners are ethical and competent, and tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns."

    That's TENS of THOUSANDS of violent crimes prevented.

     

    Look, I wish it was a world where I dont' need to be concerned about defending myself, but it is, ever here in the best country on earth.

    That's why I am against you or anyone else infringing on my constitutional rights when it comes to arms.

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    Firearms by themselves are not dangerous. Not once did any of my dads guns get out of his gun safe and fire themselves off. 

    That was easy.

     




     

    Nuclear Missiles by themselves are not dangerous. Not once did any of our nuclear missiles get out of their silos and fire themselves off.

    That was easy.



    Can't disagree. Thanks!

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    Can't disagree.



    And of course, you would also agree that nuclear weapons do not belong in a citizens' hands, despite the fact that only a bad itizen might misuse them. They're simply too dangerous to allow to fall into the hands of a citizen.

     

    Why so much resistence to the application of that reasoning to something like an assault weapon - a barely modified M16?

    I take it you agree with a ban on fully automatic weapons, but I'm not seeing why the line necessarily gets drawn there.

    Why should the fact that one shooter with handguns managed to kill a whole lot of people affect the debate? If you point to that to argue that a ban on AR-15s won't do anything, you could just as easily say the same thing about a ban on M16s. Or grenades. Or Howitzers. Why ban anything if handguns were used in VA? 

    That paragraph is why pointing to that one shooting is a Red Herring.

    That someone managed to kill a lot of people with handguns does nothing to undermine that principle of increasing the probability of reduced kill counts by removing the supply of weapons of a certain level of dangerousness.

     

     

     

     



    Psst...for like the tenth time...I'm not arguing against a ban. Try to pay attention to what I posted and not what you THINK I posted....it's help you tons!

    And your nuclear missile example is ridiculous. You should be embarrassed.

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    Psst...for like the tenth time...I'm not arguing against a ban.

     

    Oh right. I forgot. 

    You argue against each and every reason put forth for a ban on assault weapons, but not against a ban.

    Wrong..yet again. I argue against some of the arguments put forth.

    Because that makes sense.

    It does

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    It's the person that makes them dangerous. Just like its the person who makes a car dangerous, however by themselves guor and cars are not dangerous. 

    ..

    Really? Tell that to the relatives of the THIRTY THREE people who were killed by a 9 mm handgun At Virginia Tech shooting. An AR-15 isn't needed to kill scores of people. It takes less than three seconds to drop a clip and pop another one in. As in the case at V Tech, the shooter had 10 round magazines that he kept popping in to kill the 33 and wound another 23. 

    If you so concerned then shouldn't we ban 9 mm handguns too?

     

    Wow...this has to be explained to you? Yikes.

    If the argument of banning is based on the killing it can do then shouldn't we be asking for 9mm's to be banned? To date a 9mm killed more in one mass shooting than any AR-15 has.  

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    And your nuclear missile example is ridiculous. You should be embarrassed

     

    Ah, the sound of someone realizing that his "guns aren't dangerous" position is garbage.... 

    That's a mighty big leap you're making there big fella...facepalm

     




     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    If the argument of banning is based on the killing it can do then shouldn't we be asking for 9mm's to be banned?



    Things like handguns and shotguns are perfected for self-defense uses. They're at the core of the 2nd Amd. right to bear arms. So no, they shouldn't be banned.

     

    There is little in the way of legitimate self-defense purposes in an AR-15. Not unless you anticipate a zombie apocalypse. There simply is no civilian need for them. Balance that against the possibility of reduced deaths per shooting, and one may conclude that they should be banned.


    That's all. (And that's why waving VA around doesn't get you anywhere.)

     



    Haha...just because you don't like the argument doesn't mean it doesn't get me anywhere. 

     

    Ok, so why is an AR-15 not a "legitimate self-defense gun"? If an intruder comes into ones home can a AR-15 not work to do the job of defending ones self? Yes or No.

    Again, I'm ok with banning them but some of the arguments so far have been lame. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share