Gun control debate (merged)

#11,876
#11,876
Why do y’all continue to carry on with Luther von Hitler? Time and time again, he has proven to possess cognitive dissonance (“r-word” is strongly discouraged) that is paralleled by no one, yet this argument continues to be rehashed.

The chasm between his understanding of rights and my 4-year-old son’s, is wider than the margin by which Trump will win re-election.

Give him enough rope, and he will hang himself. Even Gump understands.....

1579387859604.jpeg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol, TNVOLNAVY, InVOLuntary and 1 other person
#11,877
#11,877
Rickyvol77 said:
Most guns used in crimes are gained illegally yes. And it has little to do with regular gun owners buying more than one a month. It’s not an impasse because I use legal and logical and practical thinking. You simply think the possession, purchasing or total numbers of guns leads to crime.
Click to expand...
You could break down how they are obtained illegally, but again, it would get us nowhere.
I can't decide if I should stay in this thread or rip off my fingernails.
 
#11,878
#11,878
luthervol said:
You could break down how they are obtained illegally, but again, it would get us nowhere.
I can't decide if I should stay in this thread or rip off my fingernails.
Click to expand...
I vote the latter.

Maybe we should do a poll? I bet over 86.5% would go with the fingernails.
 
#11,880
#11,880
McDad said:
Infringement by definition includes limits. You were shown this earlier. Reasonable people don't ignore definitions, Luther.
Click to expand...
Then you are claiming that the SCOTUS has already knowingly allowed infringement on 2a and consider it legal.
So how can you turn around and claim that infringement on 2a is unconstitutional?
Reasonable people are more consistent with their arguments, McDad.
 
#11,882
#11,882
luthervol said:
1. Change it from McDonald's to the public library, park, or court house.
2. I would love to assume the question is rhetorical but I'm afraid you might be at least a little serious.
Ummmmm, let me see, because the risk to others is deemed to far exceed the right of the individual.
3. Adults are not allowed to enter public schools visibly armed with knives and or guns.
Again, society in its wisdom, has deemed the rights of the one to be greatly outweighed by the risk to the many.
Click to expand...
1. I do and should have a right to bear arms in a park, library or courthouse. I can choose to voluntarily give up that right or not enter. I believe it unconstitutional to ask me to do so, however.
2. If i possess and anti aircraft gun or tank, who is harmed? Whose rights are violated?
3. Not true. SROs and other agents of the government can and do enter said school. Furthermore, the restrictions of private citizens on entering school is a development in my lifetime. We took hunter safety in Sophomore year of high school. We shot skeet on the practice fields. We also carried the shotguns back into school at end of class to store them.
 
#11,883
#11,883
luthervol said:
Then you are claiming that the SCOTUS has already knowingly allowed infringement on 2a and consider it legal.
So how can you turn around and claim that infringement on 2a is unconstitutional?
Reasonable people are more consistent with their arguments, McDad.
Click to expand...
SCOTUS in its history has ruled on many infringed rights and found no illegality. We need to look no further than America's recent despicable history for evidence. A SCOTUS decision doesn't make a matter moral or constitutional simply because SCOTUS passed a decision.
You can keep looking for an inconsistent snare in my points. Perhaps you'll find one. You have yet to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#11,884
#11,884
luthervol said:
That is such bs.
What freedoms have you lost?
Just list 2 or 3 please. It should be easy since the left has been doing it for years?
Click to expand...
One of the many definitions of freedom is the right to act without hindrance or restraint or the power of self-determination or being physically restricted. Infringing on the 2A has resulted in the loss of the following freedoms.
Fully automatic weapon restrictions
Suppressor restrictions
Magazine restrictions
Firearm ownership without a permit or license
and requiring firearms registration
There are many more but you only asked for 2 or 3.
Not sure why you continue to inject yourself in this thread and act stupid (you are), coy, and patronizing toward people who are much more versed in all things firearms.
 
#11,886
#11,886
luthervol said:
You could break down how they are obtained illegally, but again, it would get us nowhere.
I can't decide if I should stay in this thread or rip off my fingernails.
Click to expand...
Well maybe if you made logical sense instead of having no rational debate point other than “my feelz” you wouldn’t have to feel like you come from a losing position
 
#11,887
#11,887
DynaLo said:
Meh. They mean the exact same thing the Dems are so damn proud of with their illegal immigrants sanctuary cities.

The biggest difference is that when enough counties in TN pass 2A sanctuary status the state legislature has to take notice of how their constituents feel and it may help take us one step closer to becoming a Constitutional carry state. I don’t see that added benefit possibility existing at most state levels with illegal immigrants sanctuary proclamations.
Click to expand...

I laugh at those, too. Any horseshit legislation by partisan hacks that favor special interests makes me laugh. Usually, the Supreme Court settles everyone's hash at some point..
 
#11,888
#11,888
luthervol said:
1. Change it from McDonald's to the public library, park, or court house.
2. I would love to assume the question is rhetorical but I'm afraid you might be at least a little serious.
Ummmmm, let me see, because the risk to others is deemed to far exceed the right of the individual.
3. Adults are not allowed to enter public schools visibly armed with knives and or guns.
Again, society in its wisdom, has deemed the rights of the one to be greatly outweighed by the risk to the many.
Click to expand...
1) people walk armed everywhere you go. Everywhere. You do realize that right? You really believe people don’t walk armed into libraries, parks etc?
2) what risk exactly? If I buy 5 guns tomorrow how is that a risk to you? If I walk armed everywhere I go how is that a risk to you?
3) people still are walking armed in schools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#11,890
#11,890
Rickyvol77 said:
1) people walk armed everywhere you go. Everywhere. You do realize that right? You really believe people don’t walk armed into libraries, parks etc?
2) what risk exactly? If I buy 5 guns tomorrow how is that a risk to you? If I walk armed everywhere I go how is that a risk to you?
3) people still are walking armed in schools.
Click to expand...
You are correct. I've been in a grocery store and Chick fil a on seperate occasions when someone was exercising open carry. I felt no different than any other time i was in those places.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#11,891
#11,891
McDad said:
1. I do and should have a right to bear arms in a park, library or courthouse. I can choose to voluntarily give up that right or not enter. I believe it unconstitutional to ask me to do so, however.
2. If i possess and anti aircraft gun or tank, who is harmed? Whose rights are violated?
3. Not true. SROs and other agents of the government can and do enter said school. Furthermore, the restrictions of private citizens on entering school is a development in my lifetime. We took hunter safety in Sophomore year of high school. We shot skeet on the practice fields. We also carried the shotguns back into school at end of class to store them.
Click to expand...
1. So we both have issues with the way 2a has been interpreted.
2. Silly question. Obviously no one is harmed until it is used. Same with a nuclear warhead or vile of typhoid.
Society, in its wisdom, determines when risks outweigh an individual's right to own something they "supposedly" never intend to use.
3. Even more validation of my point. Not only can a person's "rights" be legally restricted for the greater good, but society can even rightfully determine who can (SROs) and who cannot (everyone else) exercise those rights.

One true constant is that things continually change. Some find that more painful than others
 
#11,893
#11,893
luthervol said:
1. So we both have issues with the way 2a has been interpreted.
2. Silly question. Obviously no one is harmed until it is used. Same with a nuclear warhead or vile of typhoid.
Society, in its wisdom, determines when risks outweigh an individual's right to own something they "supposedly" never intend to use.
3. Even more validation of my point. Not only can a person's "rights" be legally restricted for the greater good, but society can even rightfully determine who can (SROs) and who cannot (everyone else) exercise those rights.

One true constant is that things continually change. Some find that more painful than others
Click to expand...
again. People are armed everywhere you go daily in public. How unsafe have you been and what bad things happened to you because of it? How does me being armed in public places or me buying 5 guns tomorrow put you at risk?
 
#11,895
#11,895
luthervol said:
1. So we both have issues with the way 2a has been interpreted.
2. Silly question. Obviously no one is harmed until it is used. Same with a nuclear warhead or vile of typhoid.
Society, in its wisdom, determines when risks outweigh an individual's right to own something they "supposedly" never intend to use.
3. Even more validation of my point. Not only can a person's "rights" be legally restricted for the greater good, but society can even rightfully determine who can (SROs) and who cannot (everyone else) exercise those rights.

One true constant is that things continually change. Some find that more painful than others
Click to expand...

I wonder if a nuclear warhead or a vial of typhoid is considered an arm? Interesting to consider.

Society does not determine constitutional rights. The rights do not come from society therefore society cannot restrict. You are confusing tolerance of a violated right with acceptance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and hog88
#11,897
#11,897
luthervol said:
Care to reword that?
Click to expand...
Have the limitations of those rights you reference occurred without (in the absence of) the infringement or exercise of rights of others?

Ex: a worship service which practices human sacrifice.
 
#11,898
#11,898
Rickyvol77 said:
1) people walk armed everywhere you go. Everywhere. You do realize that right? You really believe people don’t walk armed into libraries, parks etc?
2) what risk exactly? If I buy 5 guns tomorrow how is that a risk to you? If I walk armed everywhere I go how is that a risk to you?
3) people still are walking armed in schools.
Click to expand...
1. You know, I've never in my life been in a restaurant where someone walked in with assault weapons slung over each shoulder.
2. We were discussing anti-aircraft weapons in point 2.
3. People are not walking around armed in schools (with the exception of RO's - who have been expressly extended that right)
 
#11,900
#11,900
luthervol said:
1. You know, I've never in my life been in a restaurant where someone walked in with assault weapons slung over each shoulder.
2. We were discussing anti-aircraft weapons in point 2.
3. People are not walking around armed in schools (with the exception of RO's - who have been expressly extended that right)
Click to expand...
1) people have been armed everywhere you go and nothing has happened to You which is the point
2) anti aircraft weapons are not firearms which defeats your point
3) lmao that you believe this
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top