Gun control debate (merged)

#20,626
#20,626
luthervol said:
I do it because you gun nuts are idiots when debating guns. You can't comprehend and discuss concepts without going down some irrelevant tangential rabbit hole.
The fact that there are definable rational and reasonable limitations that could be applied drives you nuts (or should I say, even nuttier).
Click to expand...

And liberals are idiots and there’s been enough on here to validate just how dumb they are. Nothing they propose is anywhere close to “rational and reasonable”. EVER.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tnslim1
#20,630
#20,630
luthervol said:
I'm rolling more with gun nuts are getting nuttier and are being increasingly viewed as a societal pariah.
I'm convinced nothing will be done, things will get worse, and gun nuts will use the worsening conditions as proof that their position was correct all along. (part of their nuttiness)
Click to expand...

Just to be clear the “gun nuts” aren’t the ones killing people, right?
 
#20,631
#20,631
luthervol said:
That's such a ridiculous argument.
Look at it this way and then I think I'm done with this nonsensical tangent.
Cars must have mpg ratings posted.
Every car, by your argument, would get a rating of zero, because the car cannot drive itself. It's the driver who is getting miles per gallon and not the car. I know you see how insane your position is.
And granted, different drivers may experience different miles per gallon depending on how and where they drive, but the biggest determinant is the design of the car.

Just as we have put mpg minimums on new cars, we can easily assign maximum and minimum performance standards on the design and manufacture of guns.
Click to expand...

What good is that rating without an operator ? Firearms do have a very tight standard ( every single one does ) , without it being full auto , it’s up to the operator how fast they will send a round down range , the firearm is an inanimate object . You want to restrict the operators ability to fire the weapon to the point you decide it’s safe . None of the pro 2a supporters would dare let you or anyone who thinks like you, decide what’s safe and what’s not . I would be a fool to let someone who pushes for us to establish a no fly zone over Ukraine , then pushes for the right to abort , while trying to restrict my 2a , decide what’s safe and what I should or shouldn’t have . Even Biden with dementia didn’t check all three of those boxes . We don’t have a gun problem we have a people problem. Work on fixing the people and you will stop 98.632% of the problems .
 
#20,634
#20,634
K-town Vol Fan said:
If the military decides they want to kill civilians then you are dead either way. Maybe you take a few with you, but it won't matter
Click to expand...

Guess we need to focus more on the well regulated militia part of our rights. Of course you’ll spout some domestic terrorist garb when it happens.
 
#20,635
#20,635
BigOrangeTrain said:
Lol. You still miss the boat. While there may be mpg minimums on cars, it’s the way the car is driven that determines that. Also you are using a ridiculous analogy. If you are not aware, there exists this thing called the internet. On the internet there are ways to turn most weapons from semi automatic to fully with some simple modifications.

Your argument is stupid. Answer me this. And to preface this, I would not want this to happen. But let’s just say an out of control gunman opened fire at some politicians. Would you and the other anti Constitution people be screaming about gun legislation? Or would you be talking about boosting security?
Click to expand...
Both.
And you know good and well mpg is determined more by the design of the car than the driver.
 
#20,640
#20,640
luthervol said:
I do it because you gun nuts are idiots when debating guns. You can't comprehend and discuss concepts without going down some irrelevant tangential rabbit hole.
The fact that there are definable rational and reasonable limitations that could be applied drives you nuts (or should I say, even nuttier).
Click to expand...
Then in the absence of definable parameters as to what does or does not constitute an „assault rifle“, I must respectfully decline to spend further time discussing this issue with you. If you were so honored with the position of Congressman, and wished to put your idea into practice by drafting a bill to ban said weapons, the very introduction to the bill would require you to furnish a definition of exactly the parameters you currently do not wish to provide. I do not feel like citizens should have access to any and all weaponry (as much as i would LOVE to own a Leopard II A7 Main Battle tank 😁), but I have yet to see a workable definition of „assault weapon“ from anyone on the left that provides any legitimate and operational distinction from what Are normally considered mainstream semi automatic rifles like the one my father taught me to shoot almost five decades ago.
I shall remain ready to resume discussions if we have working definitions upon which to proceed.
 
#20,642
#20,642
kiddiedoc said:
Would the OP care to explain why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Constitution? Would we also be banning high capacity rifles from what could become a tyrannical government that needed to be deposed?
Click to expand...


While listening to the progressive radio shows today, their definition of the second amendment was for only the military and/or LEO's to own firearms. During multiple segments of their shows, the EO issue was brought up, with the talk about banning AR15's by EO and semi-automatic handguns. Their remarks regarding AR15 ownership were extreme, especially against a so-called tyrannical government, because one man with an AR15 or several thousand men with AR's, can not stop a government that has nuclear capabilities. We'll just nuke you. Verbatim.
 
#20,644
#20,644
0nelilreb said:
What good is that rating without an operator ? Firearms do have a very tight standard ( every single one does ) , without it being full auto , it’s up to the operator how fast they will send a round down range , the firearm is an inanimate object . You want to restrict the operators ability to fire the weapon to the point you decide it’s safe . None of the pro 2a supporters would dare let you or anyone who thinks like you, decide what’s safe and what’s not . I would be a fool to let someone who pushes for us to establish a no fly zone over Ukraine , then pushes for the right to abort , while trying to restrict my 2a , decide what’s safe and what I should or shouldn’t have . Even Biden with dementia didn’t check all three of those boxes . We don’t have a gun problem we have a people problem. Work on fixing the people and you will stop 98.632% of the problems .
Click to expand...
We've had a people problem since the proverbial Adam and Eve and we will always have a people problem.
We should always work at understanding and addressing those people problems, and we should also continue to lessen the harmful effects of people problems.....that's were the gun issue comes in.
 
#20,645
#20,645
luthervol said:
We've had a people problem since the proverbial Adam and Eve and we will always have a people problem.
We should always work at understanding and addressing those people problems, and we should also continue to lessen the harmful effects of people problems.....that's were the gun issue comes in.
Click to expand...

I grew up without school shooting and so did you when there wasn’t restricted access to guns . . It’s not a gun problem . The reason nobody trust a gun grabber is because they know you won’t stop and there will always be another reason to restrict more access to firearms . When you start wanting to fix the root problem first , when you make that a priority, then you may see a difference in the way 2 a supports look at it . We know that’s not going to happen in a world full of excuses and sifting blame on everything and everyone except the problem itself , and that’s why you always get the hard push back .
 
#20,646
#20,646
luthervol said:
I'm rolling more with gun nuts are getting nuttier and are being increasingly viewed as a societal pariah.
I'm convinced nothing will be done, things will get worse, and gun nuts will use the worsening conditions as proof that their position was correct all along. (part of their nuttiness)
Click to expand...
^^^^^I keep returning to this thought.^^^^^^
Unfortunately, these debates never accomplish anything more than increasing the disdain between the two sides.
 
#20,649
#20,649
luthervol said:
Only helping to set the table.
Click to expand...

Odd. So how exactly are the guns the problem given the lack of correlation between gun ownership and homicide/mass murder?

If the guns were the problem shouldn’t we expect more guns to = more of both? Yet it doesn’t.

Why?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#20,650
#20,650
0nelilreb said:
I grew up without school shooting and so did you when there wasn’t restricted access to guns . . It’s not a gun problem . The reason nobody trust a gun grabber is because they know you won’t stop and there will always be another reason to restrict more access to firearms . When you start wanting to fix the root problem first , when you make that a priority, then you may see a difference in the way 2 a supports look at it . We know that’s not going to happen in a world full of excuses and sifting blame on everything and everyone except the problem itself , and that’s why you always get the hard push back .
Click to expand...
There were two shootings during my 8th grade year on school property, one inside the building. Meigs - 1974
The guy who set in the row next to me in 11th grade LA was shot and killed during a drug deal. (away from school)
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top