Gun control debate (merged)

#8,352
#8,352
0nelilreb said:
Because of child porn ? You know your going to take a beating over this right ? I’d offer you a bigger shovel for that hole your in but I don’t think it would help at this point .
Click to expand...
Not at all.
I'm just trying to get you 2a fanatics to understand that rights have reasonable and rational limitations.
When society (gov.) feels the negatives excessively outweigh any positives, rights can be, should be, and will be regulated (limited).
No one will ever take away freedom of speech, the press, religion....only rationally and reasonably regulate them.
 
#8,354
#8,354
I'll try to break it down a little more for you guys.
Is there a constitutional right to freedom of religion? sure
Are there limits put on that right? (of course)
Is there a constitutional right of freedom of the press? sure
Are there limits put on that right? (of course)
Is there a constitutional right for gun ownership? sure
Are there limits put on that right? (of course)
 
#8,355
#8,355
luthervol said:
Not at all.
I'm just trying to get you 2a fanatics to understand that rights have reasonable and rational limitations.
When society (gov.) feels the negatives excessively outweigh any positives, rights can be, should be, and will be regulated (limited).
No one will ever take away freedom of speech, the press, religion....only rationally and reasonably regulate them.
Click to expand...
Does child porn exist?
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#8,357
#8,357
luthervol said:
Not at all.
I'm just trying to get you 2a fanatics to understand that rights have reasonable and rational limitations.
When society (gov.) feels the negatives excessively outweigh any positives, rights can be, should be, and will be regulated (limited).
No one will ever take away freedom of speech, the press, religion....only rationally and reasonably regulate them.
Click to expand...
No actually you’re not. Not now not ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#8,359
#8,359
luthervol said:
I'll try to break it down a little more for you guys.
Is there a constitutional right to freedom of religion? sure
Are there limits put on that right? (of course)
Is there a constitutional right of freedom of the press? sure
Are there limits put on that right? (of course)
Is there a constitutional right for gun ownership? sure
Are there limits put on that right? (of course)
Click to expand...
1) Religion? No, there isn't.
2) Press? No, there isn't.
3) Guns? Yes, there is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#8,366
#8,366
NorthDallas40 said:
No what you’re doing is rambling on again with some diatribe trying to convince us to give up our rights. And it won’t, not now or ever. Not even up for discussion on it but happy to point at you and laugh at your lunacy!
Click to expand...
I understand your position and know exactly how to categorize it. You wouldn't like the company you keep.
 
Last edited:
#8,370
#8,370
luthervol said:
No one has the religious freedom to sacrifice babies as a ritual.
The press does not have the freedom to produce child pornography.
Click to expand...
There is no amendment for the press or religion, there is for guns. We have a freedom "from" religion, i.e., no theocracy can be established in this country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#8,372
#8,372
luthervol said:
Not at all.
I'm just trying to get you 2a fanatics to understand that rights have reasonable and rational limitations.
When society (gov.) feels the negatives excessively outweigh any positives, rights can be, should be, and will be regulated (limited).
No one will ever take away freedom of speech, the press, religion....only rationally and reasonably regulate them.
Click to expand...

They already restrict firearms. They are rationally and reasonably regulated . I can’t walk in to a dealer pick one out and walk out with it without a background check . If I’m a convicted felon I can legally own one . I have to be a certain age to buy and or have it in my possession same with the ammo that’s required to make it operate . In most states I can’t be in possession of it in my hand even in my front yard . Most states have a restriction on it being in my vehicle , you can’t have it at all in your Tractor Trailer ( CDL ) this is just the ones that come to mind I’m sure I’m missing about 100 more restrictions on my firearm . Adding more doesn’t get you what you want and just makes the supporters of 2a that much more willing to fight you over it .
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and 82_VOL_83
#8,373
#8,373
NorthDallas40 said:
No what you’re doing is rambling on again with some diatribe trying to convince us to give up our rights. And it won’t work, not now or ever. Not even up for discussion on it but happy to point at you and laugh at your lunacy!
Click to expand...

He's trolling, he just tweaks his MO. Child porn, nukes, sarin gas, whatever obfuscation tickles his pickle that day. Unless and until he's got something worth saying that addresses his fascistic desires to circumvent "those in common use for lawful purposes" in a meaningful way it's all twaddle that's wasting your time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and NorthDallas40
#8,374
#8,374
0nelilreb said:
They already restrict firearms. They are rationally and reasonably regulated . I can’t walk in to a dealer pick one out and walk out with it without a background check . If I’m a convicted felon I can legally own one . I have to be a certain age to buy and or have it in my possession same with the ammo that’s required to make it operate . In most states I can’t be in possession of it in my hand even in my front yard . Most states have a restriction on it being in my vehicle , you can’t have it at all in your Tractor Trailer ( CDL ) this is just the ones that come to mind I’m sure I’m missing about 100 more restrictions on my firearm . Adding more doesn’t get you what you want and just makes the supporters of 2a that much more willing to fight you over it .
Click to expand...
Just talking about societies role in determining rational and reasonable restrictions and their right to do so.
 
#8,375
#8,375
hog88 said:
No one has the right to harm another so they are not examples of how freedom of speech is limited.
Click to expand...
So a person's right to not be harmed supersedes another person's right to a constitutionally guaranteed right. Got it.
That's always been my point.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top