The Conservative Case For Gun Control

  1. 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 MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    If we did not have guns these people would still exist and there would still be mass murders of the same numbers just with different weapons or methods!!

    Remove politics and address the issue

     

     

    OK.

    Let's address that outlandish statement and hear your argument to back it up...

    As the man said, "Guns don't kill people...but the gun helps."

     

    Suppose Jared Loughner had brandished, say, a baseball bat embedded with spikes (a la Escape From New York).  Could he have killed as many people in Tucson before he was eventually disarmed?

    Can we save some money by equipping our law enforcement, military, border patrol, etc. with machetes or crossbows...?

     

     

     



    So if the issue is guns then why no call for banning ALL guns? Why only ask to ban "assault weapons"? The banning of assault weapons, which I'm not against, is in reality a joke. The reason is because there will still be MILLIONS out there.

     

    The other is because of the criteria. Take a stock AR-15 and it's legal. Add two of the following and suddenly it becomes illegal: collaspable stock, flash suppressor, pistol grip, bayonet mount.

    So none of the above changes the firepower of an AR-15, yet having any two of those makes the perfectly legal AR-15 now illegal. That is fcuking absurd. It's a fri99in joke.

     

     

     



    Simple answer: you cannot ban all guns.  The 2nd Amendment and Heller say you can't.  That's the law.  So it is a nonstarter in terms of the political debate.  But it is a fri99in joke and simply immoral to not recognize the problem guns present and not attempt to address the problem within the law.  Lanza killed 20 odd kids in five minutes.  The nature of the weapon he used greatly facilitated that massacre.  Any thinking individual should be able to make that causal connection and realize that the cost of such weapons far exceeds the benefit it has for any individual.  But that assumes there is real thinking going on...

     

     



    And real thinking would make you realize that even if the assault weapons ban had stayed in place he STILL would have had the AR-15 at his disposal because AR-15's were legal under the ban so long as it didn't have a folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount or flash suppressor. 

     

    And why can't all guns be banned? If you can ban one type, then why can't another type be banned? And then another, and another, and...wel...you get the idea.

    And can't decisions like Heller get overturned? Can't amendments get overturned? 



    Assault guns can be banned under Heller.  Other guns cannot.  Operating within the realm of the possible is far better than the "what ifs" that you want to explore.  And, of course, you are not really being serious. It seems you want excuses for being passive.  

     
  2. 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 Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    If we did not have guns these people would still exist and there would still be mass murders of the same numbers just with different weapons or methods!!

    Remove politics and address the issue

     

     

    OK.

    Let's address that outlandish statement and hear your argument to back it up...

    As the man said, "Guns don't kill people...but the gun helps."

     

    Suppose Jared Loughner had brandished, say, a baseball bat embedded with spikes (a la Escape From New York).  Could he have killed as many people in Tucson before he was eventually disarmed?

    Can we save some money by equipping our law enforcement, military, border patrol, etc. with machetes or crossbows...?

     

     

     



    So if the issue is guns then why no call for banning ALL guns? Why only ask to ban "assault weapons"? The banning of assault weapons, which I'm not against, is in reality a joke. The reason is because there will still be MILLIONS out there.

     

    The other is because of the criteria. Take a stock AR-15 and it's legal. Add two of the following and suddenly it becomes illegal: collaspable stock, flash suppressor, pistol grip, bayonet mount.

    So none of the above changes the firepower of an AR-15, yet having any two of those makes the perfectly legal AR-15 now illegal. That is fcuking absurd. It's a fri99in joke.

     

     

     



    Simple answer: you cannot ban all guns.  The 2nd Amendment and Heller say you can't.  That's the law.  So it is a nonstarter in terms of the political debate.  But it is a fri99in joke and simply immoral to not recognize the problem guns present and not attempt to address the problem within the law.  Lanza killed 20 odd kids in five minutes.  The nature of the weapon he used greatly facilitated that massacre.  Any thinking individual should be able to make that causal connection and realize that the cost of such weapons far exceeds the benefit it has for any individual.  But that assumes there is real thinking going on...

     

     



    And real thinking would make you realize that even if the assault weapons ban had stayed in place he STILL would have had the AR-15 at his disposal because AR-15's were legal under the ban so long as it didn't have a folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount or flash suppressor. 

     

    And why can't all guns be banned? If you can ban one type, then why can't another type be banned? And then another, and another, and...wel...you get the idea.

    And can't decisions like Heller get overturned? Can't amendments get overturned? 

     



    Assault guns can be banned under Heller.  Other guns cannot.  Operating within the realm of the possible is far better than the "what ifs" that you want to explore.  And, of course, you are not really being serious. It seems you want excuses for being passive.  

     



    So again, can't decisions like Heller be overturned? Yes or no. 

    What am I not being serious about? Explain.

     
  3. 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:

    And real thinking would make you realize that even if the assault weapons ban had stayed in place he STILL would have had the AR-15 at his disposal because AR-15's were legal under the ban so long as it didn't have a folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount or flash suppressor.



    And real thinking should make you realize that we are not necessarily arguing for a duplicate of the last assault weapons ban with the same flaws.

     

     

     



    A) I haven't seen what bill has in it...have you?

     

    B) The ban still won't get rid of the millions of "assault" weapons that are already out there

    It's a joke to think banning these guns will have any affect on gun violence. Especially when you consider that HANDGUNS are used in most cases of gun violence. Ban the "assault" weapons but don't treat us like morons and tell us it's going to have an affect on gun violence. It's pure bullsh!t.

     



    Look at other countries without these weapons and their record of gun violence.  Look at the damage these weapons cause here.  It is a JOKE that you cannot make these basic comparisons.  It is a JOKE that you are unwilling to even try to seek a solution to the gun violence our society.  And worse than that you seek demean the efforts of others to find solutions while you are content to sit on your a55 waiting to read about the next tragedy and the next and the next.  Disgusting.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. 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:

     

    So again, can't decisions like Heller be overturned? Yes or no. 
    What am I not being serious about? Explain.

     



    Second one first. Answer: the discussion.

     

    You wouldn't type "oh YEAH? Well why aren't you trying to ban all guns" if you were being serious. You apparently knew the answer to the question before you asked it. Kind of gives the lie to your feigned befuddlement.

     

    I'm only following your argument. If you tell me the reason to ban "assault" weapons is to curb gun violence then it makes perfect sense to ask you why you're not calling for all guns to be banned. Any gun is capable of being used for gun violence is it not? So again, if your reason is GUN VIOLENCE, then it stands to reason you should want ALL guns banned. Sorry if logic escapes you.

     

    Heller was 2008. The Court applied it to the states in 2010. They are not going to reverse Heller within a few years of its coming down.

     

    So it CAN be reversed. Thanks! 

     



     
  6. 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:

      So it CAN be reversed. Thanks!

     

    Did you have a point?

     

    Or was this a pointless not sequiter -  were you really not sure whether or not there was some hidden doctrine that dictates that certain decisions are fundmentally and for all time irreversible?



    If you're unable to grasp my point then there's really no helping you.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. 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:

    Just disingenuous with your reasons.



    I see.

     

    Reid won't even put an assault weapons ban to the floor, but I'm disengenous for failing to write to him and demand a repeal of the 2nd Amd. Right.

     

    Or maybe you fail at internet trolling. Depressing. Even a 10 year old can do it.



    Moving goalposts I see. I never said anything about you being disingenuous for not writing Reid to repeal 2nd amd. Not even sure where you got that. Seems like YOU'RE trolling.

     

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. 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:

    So you agree you're making sh!t up now. It's a start.


    You might as well just post "I know you are but what am I".

    I know you're hoping I'll react like airborne and lay down a four paragraph rant calling you every name I think of. But I'm afraid I'll have to dissapoint you. If you want to man up (that's supposed to be your thing, isn't it) and drop the silly childish trolling attempts, I'll check back tomorrow.

    But I'm done watching you try to make hay out of the fact that Reuben and I aren't demanding repeal of the 2nd and seizure of all guns......

    Too stupid, too lame, too transparent.



    Wrong again. I have no desire for you to be like airborne but you continue with your incorrect assumptions. It's what you do best.

    its funny that whenever things don't go your way you accuse the other person of trolling. Talk about stupid, lame and transparent

     

     

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

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    If we did not have guns these people would still exist and there would still be mass murders of the same numbers just with different weapons or methods!!

    Remove politics and address the issue

     

     

    OK.

    Let's address that outlandish statement and hear your argument to back it up...

    As the man said, "Guns don't kill people...but the gun helps."

     

    Suppose Jared Loughner had brandished, say, a baseball bat embedded with spikes (a la Escape From New York).  Could he have killed as many people in Tucson before he was eventually disarmed?

    Can we save some money by equipping our law enforcement, military, border patrol, etc. with machetes or crossbows...?

     

     

     



    So if the issue is guns then why no call for banning ALL guns? Why only ask to ban "assault weapons"? The banning of assault weapons, which I'm not against, is in reality a joke. The reason is because there will still be MILLIONS out there.

     

    The other is because of the criteria. Take a stock AR-15 and it's legal. Add two of the following and suddenly it becomes illegal: collaspable stock, flash suppressor, pistol grip, bayonet mount.

    So none of the above changes the firepower of an AR-15, yet having any two of those makes the perfectly legal AR-15 now illegal. That is fcuking absurd. It's a fri99in joke.

     

     




    The libs don't want to address what you say here becasue it makes too much sense,

     

    Modern liberalism is all about putting more and more power inthe hands of the state, in order to protect the people.  It is like HAL in the movie "2001".  Eventually, liberal government arrives at a place where the only way to truly control people is to eliminate every single freedom and responsibility that they enjoy.

    This is why gun control exists, why Obamacare exists, and so on.  It isn't about those items, it is about controlling people.

     
  14. 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 skeeter20's comment:

    Modern liberalism is... like HAL in the movie "2001".



    Liberals are HAL. And Hitler. Might as well throw in pol pot, stalin, the khmer rougue, North Korea, Nero, Ghenghis Khan, and really every other evil person who ever lived.

     

     



    Another example of how it's ok for YOU to be snarky....

     
  15. 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 skeeter20's comment:

    Modern liberalism is... like HAL in the movie "2001".



    Liberals are HAL. And Hitler. Might as well throw in pol pot, stalin, the khmer rougue, North Korea, Nero, Ghenghis Khan, and really every other evil person who ever lived.

     

     

    Good analysis.



    Why thankyou.  Sorry that I left out your favorite heroes of the left.

     
  16. 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:

    Another example of how it's ok for YOU to be snarky.



    When have I ever said "how dare you be snarky"?

     

    Just don't lie about what I say, and please fix your hypocrisy detection device. Thing has been broken for some time now.



    Hahaha...facepalm

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

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    Modern liberalism is... like HAL in the movie "2001".



    Liberals are HAL. And Hitler. Might as well throw in pol pot, stalin, the khmer rougue, North Korea, Nero, Ghenghis Khan, and really every other evil person who ever lived.

     

     

     



    Another example of how it's ok for YOU to be snarky....

     




    He wasn't being snarky.  He was seething like the serpent he is when confronted with the truth.

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

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In honor of Sister:

    https://pinterest.com/pin/276830708316820899/

     

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

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    So I went to shooting range today with a friend of mine (his gun club). There were two other guys shooting and they both had an AR-15. I had never shot a rifle of this type so they asked me if I wanted to give it try. Gotta say....damn fun to shoot...damn fun to shoot. I understand why law abiding recreational shooting citizens would enjoying having one...it's fun to shoot. 

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

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    So I went to shooting range today with a friend of mine (his gun club). There were two other guys shooting and they both had an AR-15. I had never shot a rifle of this type so they asked me if I wanted to give it try. Gotta say....damn fun to shoot...damn fun to shoot. I understand why law abiding recreational shooting citizens would enjoying having one...it's fun to shoot. 




    Fun to shoot, and the very things the liberals crow about are the very things that make is a very useful defensive weapon.

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

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    So I went to shooting range today with a friend of mine (his gun club). There were two other guys shooting and they both had an AR-15. I had never shot a rifle of this type so they asked me if I wanted to give it try. Gotta say....damn fun to shoot...damn fun to shoot. I understand why law abiding recreational shooting citizens would enjoying having one...it's fun to shoot. 

     




    Fun to shoot, and the very things the liberals crow about are the very things that make is a very useful defensive weapon.

     



    To be honest, it shouldn't matter whether or not it's a useful defensive weapon. All legal-to-own guns can be useful defensive weapons.

     

     
  22. 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 skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    So I went to shooting range today with a friend of mine (his gun club). There were two other guys shooting and they both had an AR-15. I had never shot a rifle of this type so they asked me if I wanted to give it try. Gotta say....damn fun to shoot...damn fun to shoot. I understand why law abiding recreational shooting citizens would enjoying having one...it's fun to shoot. 

     




    Fun to shoot, and the very things the liberals crow about are the very things that make is a very useful defensive weapon.

     

     



    To be honest, it shouldn't matter whether or not it's a useful defensive weapon. All legal-to-own guns can be useful defensive weapons.

     

     



    That's the issue.  Is the "fun" this weapon provides worth the danger it poses to others?

    Was Lanza having "fun" when he destroyed those kids in the classrooms?  Probably... but not really relevant.  The lives of the kids are the real pressing social issue.  Fun vs. kids.  Do you have to think about it?

     
  23. 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 skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    So I went to shooting range today with a friend of mine (his gun club). There were two other guys shooting and they both had an AR-15. I had never shot a rifle of this type so they asked me if I wanted to give it try. Gotta say....damn fun to shoot...damn fun to shoot. I understand why law abiding recreational shooting citizens would enjoying having one...it's fun to shoot. 

     




    Fun to shoot, and the very things the liberals crow about are the very things that make is a very useful defensive weapon.

     

     



    To be honest, it shouldn't matter whether or not it's a useful defensive weapon. All legal-to-own guns can be useful defensive weapons.

     

     

     



    That's the issue.  Is the "fun" this weapon provides worth the danger it poses to others?

     

    Shouldn't that be asked of ALL guns? 

     

    Was Lanza having "fun" when he destroyed those kids in the classrooms?  Probably... but not really relevant.  The lives of the kids are the real pressing social issue.  Fun vs. kids.  Do you have to think about it?

     

    Again, shouldn't this be asked of ALL guns? There have been many more mass shootings at the hands of non-assault weapons yet all you and your ilk seem to be concerned about is the type of weapon that has been used in less than 1% of gun related deaths.




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

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    So I went to shooting range today with a friend of mine (his gun club). There were two other guys shooting and they both had an AR-15. I had never shot a rifle of this type so they asked me if I wanted to give it try. Gotta say....damn fun to shoot...damn fun to shoot. I understand why law abiding recreational shooting citizens would enjoying having one...it's fun to shoot. 

     




    Fun to shoot, and the very things the liberals crow about are the very things that make is a very useful defensive weapon.

     

     



    To be honest, it shouldn't matter whether or not it's a useful defensive weapon. All legal-to-own guns can be useful defensive weapons.

     

     



    Inprecision of the English language.  What I mean is that the things that make liberals call it an "assault" weapon, larger capacity, pistol grip, etc. make it, in some situations, in the properly trained hands, superior as a defensive weapon in comparison to, say, a pistol, or a baseball bat.

    It is the liberal argument in reverse.

     
  25. 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 skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    So I went to shooting range today with a friend of mine (his gun club). There were two other guys shooting and they both had an AR-15. I had never shot a rifle of this type so they asked me if I wanted to give it try. Gotta say....damn fun to shoot...damn fun to shoot. I understand why law abiding recreational shooting citizens would enjoying having one...it's fun to shoot. 

     




    Fun to shoot, and the very things the liberals crow about are the very things that make is a very useful defensive weapon.

     

     



    To be honest, it shouldn't matter whether or not it's a useful defensive weapon. All legal-to-own guns can be useful defensive weapons.

     

     

     



    That's the issue.  Is the "fun" this weapon provides worth the danger it poses to others?

     

    Shouldn't that be asked of ALL guns? 

     

    Was Lanza having "fun" when he destroyed those kids in the classrooms?  Probably... but not really relevant.  The lives of the kids are the real pressing social issue.  Fun vs. kids.  Do you have to think about it?

     

    Again, shouldn't this be asked of ALL guns? There have been many more mass shootings at the hands of non-assault weapons yet all you and your ilk seem to be concerned about is the type of weapon that has been used in less than 1% of gun related deaths.

     



    Some guns are more dangerous than others.  You can ask about all guns, but under our law on this individual right only dangerous guns can be limited.  Is it 1%?  If so, it is a start.  I work in a school and if I can increase my chances of survival because of a pause to reload, I will take that chance.  And really, who needs a thirty round clip for self defense or hunting or the fun of target shooting?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share