Gun control debate (merged)

#9,952
#9,952
evillawyer said:
My concern was that he put the gun in his back waistband. It had clearly not been there when he drove in (else there would have been no tucking it in the back waistband). The gas station had no other cars there and the store inside appeared empty. The dude looked like the type of guy who'd show up in a police blotter for an armed robbery arrest. Seemed strange to arm oneself when going in to what appeared to be an empty business at 11:00 at night ... And staring at the one other person that just drove up.
Click to expand...
Just because it was empty when he went in, doesnt mean it would be empty when he came out.
 
#9,953
#9,953
evillawyer said:
One other detail. Don't know if it makes a difference for folks. When he tucked it in to his back waistband, he also tucked in that portion of the shirt. Thus, the handle of the gun was visible and the gun was much easier for him to access, as he would not need to pull up the back of his shirt to get to the gun.
Click to expand...
That detail just makes him a weirdo.
You can side draw from underneath a shirt with your thumb just as quick as if it was outside your shirt.
He just made it easier for a jackwagon to take his gun from behind. Sounds like an idiot to me.
 
#9,954
#9,954
luthervol said:
I was curious who would be the first to take the bait.
Click to expand...
iu
 
#9,957
#9,957
volinsd said:
That detail just makes him a weirdo.
You can side draw from underneath a shirt with your thumb just as quick as if it was outside your shirt.
He just made it easier for a jackwagon to take his gun from behind. Sounds like an idiot to me.
Click to expand...

so not a responsible gun owner you want to hang out with?
 
#9,958
#9,958
ClearwaterVol said:
so not a responsible gun owner you want to hang out with?
Click to expand...

not at all. It was 11pm and the gas station was nearly deserted. He assessed the tactical situation and reasoned that it was unlikely his sidearm could be taken from him if it was visible.
 
#9,965
#9,965
CagleMtnVol said:
Who said Red Flag Laws could be abused? That's right anyone with a brain.

Click to expand...


Just the first of many. Stay tuned for more. Extremists on the left with an axe to grind will use this to their advantage, seeking retribution for anything and everything completely unrelated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol
#9,966
#9,966
luthervol said:
Well then that is were you and I (as well as 90% of the public) disagree.
But if that is the negotiating position of the gun crowd (I didn't use the word nuts), then by all means arrest those people. It's more expensive and intrusive and takes away more rights, but hey, it's all about 2A.
Click to expand...
Let's play out your little nazi fantasy of taking away guns from a dangerous individual.

You have come into their home. Somehow found every single last gun they have. And left. But you have left the deranged person free. So you already have a mentally deranged person (or whatever term you want to use) and you piss them off by taking their stuff.

So you have now given this unbalanced person a reason to be upset and angry. So they go to their budy, thug on the corner, steal from a neighbor, and now are right back armed (remember it's easier to gets guns than books) and have a motive.

That's not a stream of events that looks to play out well. Ignoring any number of problems in your idea. Person being armed already, not getting all their guns, having one in their car etc etc.

A gun sitting on it's own is no danger. A person on their own is all sorts of danger. You haven't removed the threat by removing the gun. They can take their car, knife, fists and still kill. But of course that doesnt matter to you, you just want the gun.

And you still ignore their due process. At least when arrested there is an established means to this to ensure they still have rights. Miranda rights, lawyers phone call, etc. No such on your gun grab. But please keep ignoring the real problem in order to get rid of the guns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, McDad, hog88 and 1 other person
#9,967
#9,967
And there are more restrictions on guns. The dangerous stuff is already illegal. You are making any practice of religion (gun ownership) subject to YOUR whims.
luthervol said:
There are certainly restrictions and limitations to freedom of religion.
And taking away guns from a crazy person is kind of like quarantining someone with an infectious disease.
Occasionally the rights of the many must override the right of an individual.
Click to expand...
 
#9,968
#9,968
MG1968 said:
not at all. It was 11pm and the gas station was nearly deserted. He assessed the tactical situation and reasoned that it was unlikely his sidearm could be taken from him if it was visible.
Click to expand...

You are making lots of assumptions not supported by the evidence.
 
#9,969
#9,969
luthervol said:
There are certainly restrictions and limitations to freedom of religion.
And taking away guns from a crazy person is kind of like quarantining someone with an infectious disease.
Occasionally the rights of the many must override the right of an individual.
Click to expand...

There are no restrictions or limitations on the freedom to practice religion. You just can't hurt another person in your religious practices.
The many should always defer to the rights of the individual for one day you may be the individual.
 
#9,970
#9,970
hog88 said:
There are no restrictions or limitations on the freedom to practice religion. You just can't hurt another person in your religious practices.
The many should always defer to the rights of the individual for one day you may be the individual.
Click to expand...
Wrong on both counts.
People are limited in the free practice of their religion in many work environments.
Typhoid Mary's right to trade and roam freely were correctly trumped by the rights of the many to not be exposed to typhoid.
 
#9,971
#9,971
luthervol said:
Wrong on both counts.
People are limited in the free practice of their religion in many work environments.
Typhoid Mary's right to trade and roam freely were correctly trumped by the rights of the many to not be exposed to typhoid.
Click to expand...

Come on Luther, you know you are comparing apples to oranges.
Again, you miss the caveat of hurting others. Your rights end at the tip of your nose, you can't hurt/harm others in the exercise of your rights.
 
#9,972
#9,972
luthervol said:
Of course they shouldn't, but as we all know, mistakes happen. Innocent people have been found guilty since trials began. It's inevitable. The answer is obviously not to stop having trials.
Click to expand...
But when those same instances of innocents being hurt by the guilty happen in guns the answer is to stop having guns?

You arent consistent in the slightest. You dont want other rights treated like the second. You dont want the government treated the same as the people.
 
#9,973
#9,973
LouderVol said:
But when those same instances of innocents being hurt by the guilty happen in guns the answer is to stop having guns?

You arent consistent in the slightest. You dont want other rights treated like the second. You dont want the government treated the same as the people.
Click to expand...
I'm 100% consistent and have never once in my life said the answer is to stop having guns.

You guys and your false assumptions and accusations.
 
#9,974
#9,974
hog88 said:
Come on Luther, you know you are comparing apples to oranges.
Again, you miss the caveat of hurting others. Your rights end at the tip of your nose, you can't hurt/harm others in the exercise of your rights.
Click to expand...
We are in complete agreement on the bolded.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top