Gun control debate (merged)

[Mick]

What????????
I just did answer your question.
Now wold you care to answer mine?

It's impossible for him do so.

 

[0nelilreb]

It's impossible for him do so.

You want in on Luthers tap dancing routine to ? You are more than welcome to answer that question ... what is the definition of the word infringed ? There is no other reason to answer a question until we get this definition out of the way , that way everyone starts out on the same base line .

 

[hog88]

I have not heard of a lot of shotguns being used in mass shootings.

Weapon types used in mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and December 2019

 

[hog88]

Not entirely accurate. I just believe in sensible gun legislation.

We already have overly "sensible" gun legislation.

 

[hndog609]

I suspect you actually believe in emotional gun legislation.

At this point in time there is very little, if nothing else regarding gun legislation.

 

[Rickyvol77]

I have not heard of a lot of shotguns being used in mass shootings.

Then you don’t keep up with actual facts

 

[luthervol]

Is that the definition of infringed? Are you being dishonest on purpose ?

I didn't look it up. I gave you my understanding of the definition.
Would you ever care to answer my questions?
The longer you delay, the more telling the reasons.

 

[0nelilreb]

I didn't look it up. I gave you my understanding of the definition.
Would you ever care to answer my questions?
The longer you delay, the more telling the reasons.

I’m not the one delaying . Who gives a definition of a word that is used in the constitution as a way to determine our rights as “my understanding of the definition “ ? I’m so glad you weren’t around when our FF were putting our rights on paper . Your dancing skills are impressive , the routine is old , but none the less impressive .

 

[bnhunt]

We already have overly "sensible" gun legislation.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

 

[hog88]

I wholeheartedly disagree.

You being wrong is not unusual.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

Anyone who approves of a law “that could save one life” is a moron.

 

[bnhunt]

You being wrong is not unusual.

Pot meet kettle.

 

[hog88]

Pot meet kettle.

Opposition to limiting individual liberty is never wrong.

 

[TheDeeble]

Anyone who approves of a law “that could save one life” is a moron.

Need to ban swimming pools. Doing so could definitely save the lives of children (and adults) everywhere.

 

[37L1]

Need to ban swimming pools. Doing so could definitely save the lives of children (and adults) everywhere.

Cars. It would save thousands a year.

 

[luthervol]

I’m not the one delaying . Who gives a definition of a word that is used in the constitution as a way to determine our rights as “my understanding of the definition “ ? I’m so glad you weren’t around when our FF were putting our rights on paper . Your dancing skills are impressive , the routine is old , but none the less impressive .

And you still would rather not answer. Telling.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

We are also indirectly killing a lot of those people by not letting them enter the country and while I am not for completely open borders, I do not believe that every Mexican is a rapist or murderer or everyone from the Middle East is a terrorist.

Well then their government needs to improve.

Not the USA's problem.

 

[0nelilreb]

And you still would rather not answer. Telling.

I’ll answer when you do , so we start out at the same starting line . Your dancing around won’t help your argument , it only prolongs the inevitable.

 

[luthervol]

I’ll answer when you do , so we start out at the same starting line . Your dancing around won’t help your argument , it only prolongs the inevitable.

I did. You didn't. 'Nuff said.

Definition of INFRINGE

My definition is perfectly in line. But take whatever cover you think it provides.

 

[0nelilreb]

I did. You didn't. 'Nuff said.

Definition of INFRINGE

My definition is perfectly in line. But take whatever cover you think it provides.

I only take what’s afforded to me based on my constitutional rights . The 2a says SHALL NOT BE Infringed upon . That means no encroachment of my rights is permissible . Your understanding of the word is incorrect by definition . That’s the problem with you gun grabbers , you think your definition or understanding should be the way it is . That should also answer the question you asked me earlier , in case that’s not enough though .. I believe all you gun grabbers should keep your hands off my firearms regardless of the type , model , length , color , caliber , ability to hold any sized magazine and regardless of its operating system ... period .

 

[luthervol]

I only take what’s afforded to me based on my constitutional rights . The 2a says SHALL NOT BE Infringed upon . That means no encroachment of my rights is permissible . Your understanding of the word is incorrect by definition . That’s the problem with you gun grabbers , you think your definition or understanding should be the way it is . That should also answer the question you asked me earlier , in case that’s not enough though .. I believe all you gun grabbers should keep your hands off my firearms regardless of the type , model , length , color , caliber , ability to hold any sized magazine and regardless of its operating system ... period .

So surface to air missiles are good?

 

[hog88]

So surface to air missiles are good?

Yes.

 

[luthervol]

Yes.

I know that's your response. You have stated your willingness to allow the nonsensical extension.
I think you may have even said that people walking around with their own personal mini-nuke was acceptable.
That's not a position very many are willing to take.
For those not willing to take that position, the obvious conclusion is a line will be drawn.
So where does that leave us?
Either there are absolutely no restrictions. (people have anti-aircraft guns, nukes, land mines, and chemical weapons)
Or we have some rational and reasonable restrictions.

 

[hog88]

I know that's your response. You have stated your willingness to allow the nonsensical extension.
I think you may have even said that people walking around with their own personal mini-nuke was acceptable.
That's not a position very many are willing to take.
For those not willing to take that position, the obvious conclusion is a line will be drawn.
So where does that leave us?
Either there are absolutely no restrictions. (people have anti-aircraft guns, nukes, land mines, and chemical weapons)
Or we have some rational and reasonable restrictions.

The only rational and reasonable restrictions are, you are not allowed to harm anyone with your weapons outside of self defense.

 

[luthervol]

The only rational and reasonable restrictions are, you are not allowed to harm anyone with your weapons outside of self defense.

Sure. Love thy neighbor and all.
But you know very well that the reality is that some will ignore that rational and reasonable restriction; which then necessitates that second layer of rational and reasonable restrictions. It's a bummer that society has to function that way, but unfortunately some individuals suk.