Gun control debate (merged)

[OrangeTsar]

I thought he was every sperm is sacred.

Catholics and Protestants will disagree on this. For my point, sperm has the identical dna of the male and is therefore not a unique new life

 

[Orangeslice13]

The good side to this is maybe the liberals that moved to TN will move back to the crap holes they came from, you know, for women's health and all.

We will see how that plays out.
I’m not sure abortion becomes illegal in Tennessee

 

[OrangeTsar]

Who is trying to seize your gun?

You, if you want „reasonable“ gun control. Can you define what that means exactly? If one of my guns is „unreasonable“, would you allow me to keep it? If not, what is the purpose of „control“?

 

[OrangeTsar]

The answer to that question has always been and will always be.........ultimately, by society.

Then it is no longer „my“ right then is it? I am just slowed tongue something as long as my neighbors allow it? That isn’t how „rights“ work.
No thanks

 

[OrangeTsar]

Who is trying to seize your gun?

'Hell, yes,' Beto O'Rourke's call to confiscate AR-15s pushes gun debate to new level

 

[VolStrom]

We will see how that plays out.
I’m not sure abortion becomes illegal in Tennessee

I vaguely remember a vote that TN took a number of years ago that made abortion illegal that was struck down in a lower federal court. If the SCOTUS strikes down roe v wade, that may become law in TN.
I think this explains it:

In Tennessee, roots of expected ban on abortion date 20 years back – Tennessee Lookout

 

[luthervol]

Catholics and Protestants will disagree on this. For my point, sperm has the identical dna of the male and is therefore not a unique new life

I understand that there are different perspectives and firmly held beliefs.....that's why trying to identify one specific point is foolhardy.

 

[luthervol]

You, if you want „reasonable“ gun control. Can you define what that means exactly? If one of my guns is „unreasonable“, would you allow me to keep it? If not, what is the purpose of „control“?

I would not support any forced confiscation of guns. What you have, you keep.

My position is rooted in this belief. We currently have about 400,000,000 guns in this country.
About 19,000,000 guns were purchased in 2021.
Our nation would be better off if the 2022 number was 15,000,000 rather than 21,000,000.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

If they reverse then they never had that right.
Amend or move.

They did for 50 years.

 

[OrangeTsar]

I would not support any forced confiscation of guns. What you have, you keep.

My position is rooted in this belief. We currently have about 400,000,000 guns in this country.
About 19,000,000 guns were purchased in 2021.
Our nation would be better off if the 2022 number was 15,000,000 rather than 21,000,000.

Would you tell the Ukranian‘s today that they don’t Need s many guns s they have?
We never know when those crazy Canadians might invade and try to take over like they Did in 1812 you Know

 

[Orangeslice13]

I vaguely remember a vote that TN took a number of years ago that made abortion illegal that was struck down in a lower federal court. If the SCOTUS strikes down roe v wade, that may become law in TN.
I think this explains it:

In Tennessee, roots of expected ban on abortion date 20 years back – Tennessee Lookout

I’m just not sure which way it would go this time

 

[OrangeTsar]

I understand that there are different perspectives and firmly held beliefs.....that's why trying to identify one specific point is foolhardy.

Yes there is. We Protestants are correct and the Catholics are wrong on this one issue.
See, that was easy

 

[Orangeslice13]

They did for 50 years.

did they?

 

[luthervol]

Would you tell the Ukranian‘s today that they don’t Need s many guns s they have?
We never know when those crazy Canadians might invade and try to take over like they Did in 1812 you Know

They needed far more than guns. It actually proves that in today's world the citizens of a nation will never be armed heavily enough to defend itself from invaders.
But I think our 400,000,000 number will suffice.
The argument that the 2a is what keeps us safe from a tyrannical government is probably the weakest of the pro gun arguments.

 

[luthervol]

Yes there is. We Protestants are correct and the Catholics are wrong on this one issue.
See, that was easy

I stand corrected.

 

[LouderVol]

I would not support any forced confiscation of guns. What you have, you keep.

My position is rooted in this belief. We currently have about 400,000,000 guns in this country.
About 19,000,000 guns were purchased in 2021.
Our nation would be better off if the 2022 number was 15,000,000 rather than 21,000,000.

So you have done the math? That on average you are removing more harm than good, or neutral, or non, effects?

I would love to see it.

Because I am pretty dang sure we didnt have 3 million negative gun incidents in the last year. Especially if it's just the new guns you take issue with.

 

[hog88]

I am not sure it gives it anymore power. Such a law would simply be ruled unconstitutional by this court.

Sounds like emotion and not logic speaking. Can you point to a ruling by any court reversing a federal law that made something permissible?

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Sounds like emotion and not logic speaking. Can you point to a ruling by any court reversing a federal law that made something permissible?

That is not the issue. The issue is whether this court would find Congress had the power to make this law. I am of the opinion this court would have struck down any such law.

 

[hog88]

I agree that it was an overreaction and that the additional safety and security provided is far outweighed by the inconveniences to the law abiding.

Which would not be the case with rational and reasonable gun laws and regulations.

It's illusion Luther, nothing more. Everything used to hijack those planes was perfectly legal to have on a plane at that time. Prior to 9/11/2001 the last time a US passenger jet was hijacked after taking off from a US airport was Jan 1987 so it wasn't much of a problem in the US. The creation of the TSA has done nothing to improve security other than provide you with the illusion of security.

 

[luthervol]

So you have done the math? That on average you are removing more harm than good, or neutral, or non, effects?

I would love to see it.

Because I am pretty dang sure we didnt have 3 million negative gun incidents in the last year. Especially if it's just the new guns you take issue with.

Not sure what you are getting at.
My point was simple (I think): I believe our nation would benefit from fewer gun sales rather than more.
I'm guessing some of you guys must believe that the more guns circulating through our country, the better.

 

[luthervol]

It's illusion Luther, nothing more. Everything used to hijack those planes was perfectly legal to have on a plane at that time. Prior to 9/11/2001 the last time a US passenger jet was hijacked after taking off from a US airport was Jan 1987 so it wasn't much of a problem in the US. The creation of the TSA has done nothing to improve security other than provide you with the illusion of security.

Didn't I say that I agreed that it was an overreaction?

 

[hog88]

That is not the issue. The issue is whether this court would find Congress had the power to make this law. I am of the opinion this court would have struck down any such law.

What do you base this opinion on? Have they made a ruling that backs up that opinion?

 

[hog88]

Didn't I say that I agreed that it was an overreaction?

And stated that it was worth inconveniencing the law abiding.

 

[LouderVol]

They needed far more than guns. It actually proves that in today's world the citizens of a nation will never be armed heavily enough to defend itself from invaders.
But I think our 400,000,000 number will suffice.
The argument that the 2a is what keeps us safe from a tyrannical government is probably the weakest of the pro gun arguments.

You argument is proof that the restrictions on the 2A are too much. If it wasnt for the restrictions placed on people, they could be armed well enough to fight off an invasion.

Also I really dont buy your argument that one case of Russia invading Ukraine is proof citizens will never be able to effectively fight an invader. They werent armed period. So it can not be proof that man portable weapons are ineffective.

 

[OrangeTsar]

We already do, except when the states infringe on constitutional rights - like when they make abortions illegal.

If the Supreme Court rules the we it is expected to, then there IS no longer my recognized constitutional right to n abortion so your argument becomes moot.