Gun control debate (merged)

[82_VOL_83]

Maybe triggers that can only be pulled once every 5 seconds. Or maybe once every 3 seconds - negotiable - room for compromise.

So you are negotiating with me over something that I have to lose and you have only to gain? How is that, in any definition of the word, negotiation?

 

[82_VOL_83]

What a load of meaningless nonsense.
No gun kills anyone, but every gun was designed specifically to kill people (according to the gun nuts on here yesterday).

When the instances of a particular undesirable action are reduced by the passing of a law, then it's safe to conclude that the law reduced the instances of the particular action.

No it is not. The law changes nothing. The willingness of the people to follow the law is the only thing that changes. You are just purposely trolling now.

 

[hog88]

You can't sell to someone out of state either.

Can't legally give one to a relative in another state, unless you're dead.

 

[luthervol]

So you are negotiating with me over something that I have to lose and you have only to gain? How is that, in any definition of the word, negotiation?

Refusing to negotiate will cost you more than a willingness to negotiate.
It's like if an employer calls in an employee and says "we are going to have to let you go, but we would be happy to negotiate some sort of severance, or you can refuse to negotiate and you will simply be fired with no severance - it's up to you, but know we are trying to be rational and reasonable."

Or if one country is obviously on the verge of defeating another and they say "we will gladly sit down and negotiate an end, or you can refuse to negotiate and we will take it all."

 

[luthervol]

No it is not. The law changes nothing. The willingness of the people to follow the law is the only thing that changes. You are just purposely trolling now.

The willingness of people to follow the law? What law, if no law is place? That makes zero sense. You may be the troll.

 

[hog88]

Refusing to negotiate will cost you more than a willingness to negotiate.
It's like if an employer calls in an employee and says "we are going to have to let you go, but we would be happy to negotiate some sort of severance, or you can refuse to negotiate and you will simply be fired with no severance - it's up to you, but know we are trying to be rational and reasonable."

Or if one country is obviously on the verge of defeating another and they say "we will gladly sit down and negotiate an end, or you can refuse to negotiate and we will take it all."

Yeah, I'll worry about what "you're" going to cost me when I see movement on a constitutional amendment.

 

[luthervol]

Yeah, I'll worry about what "you're" going to cost me when I see movement on a constitutional amendment.

It's not going to take a constitutional amendment in order to pass additional regulations.
Because no one truly wants to take away your right to keep and bear arms. (which would require a constitutional amendment)

 

[hog88]

It's not going to take a constitutional amendment in order to pass additional regulations.
Because no one truly wants to take away your right to keep and bear arms. (which would require a constitutional amendment)

You can pass whatever you like, SCOTUS has set the precedent and that's not changing anytime in the near future.

 

[luthervol]

You can pass whatever you like, SCOTUS has set the precedent and that's not changing anytime in the near future.

They'll eventually follow the national will. (they always do)

 

[hog88]

They'll eventually follow the national will. (they always do)

Yeah that's what we want, a SCOTUS that rules on national will instead of constitutionality. You're a joke.

 

[C-south]

They'll eventually follow the national will. (they always do)

Maybe that’s partly why there’s a 2nd amendment. There’s over 400 million firearms in the US, probably a lot more. There’s no law, restriction, or phantom Supreme Court ruling that’s going to eliminate firearms. They’re here to stay and fear mongers like yourself only add to people acquiring more firearms. There’s no ridiculous 5 second delay trigger and there will never be. The only way that is true is if the person pulling the trigger counts to 5 between shots. …

 

[82_VOL_83]

Refusing to negotiate will cost you more than a willingness to negotiate.
It's like if an employer calls in an employee and says "we are going to have to let you go, but we would be happy to negotiate some sort of severance, or you can refuse to negotiate and you will simply be fired with no severance - it's up to you, but know we are trying to be rational and reasonable."

Or if one country is obviously on the verge of defeating another and they say "we will gladly sit down and negotiate an end, or you can refuse to negotiate and we will take it all."

So you answer the question by not answering the question. Troll.

 

[85SugarVol]

They'll eventually follow the national will. (they always do)

You are an incredibly dangerous person.

 

[hog88]

You are an incredibly dangerous person.

As a person he's a harmless dolt, a group of people with the same mindset is what's dangerous.

 

[C-south]

You are an incredibly dangerous person.

He’s one of many deranged lunatics that make up the looney left.

 

[85SugarVol]

As a person he's a harmless dolt, a group of people with the same mindset is what's dangerous.

You’re right. It’s the mentality.

 

[82_VOL_83]

The willingness of people to follow the law? What law, if no law is place? That makes zero sense. You may be the troll.

Only to someone with a Constitution be damned agenda.

So if I made a law saying you can't kill your kids, what is going to stop you from killing your kids? If there was no law against killing your kids, would you?

I drive home between 78 and 82 MPH every day. If there was no speed limit, I would still drive that speed. I am breaking existing laws because I choose not to follow them. The willingness to break the law doesn't mean I'm going to drive 145 MPH home everyday. Therefore the law essentially has no effect on me or my behavior whatsoever.

Yes purposefully brutal but proves the point.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Maybe that’s partly why there’s a 2nd amendment. There’s over 400 million firearms in the US, probably a lot more. There’s no law, restriction, or phantom Supreme Court ruling that’s going to eliminate firearms. They’re here to stay and fear mongers like yourself only add to people acquiring more firearms. There’s no ridiculous 5 second delay trigger and there will never be. The only way that is true is if the person pulling the trigger counts to 5 between shots. …

Or makes sure to center the cross hairs on the next target.

 

[luthervol]

Yeah that's what we want, a SCOTUS that rules on national will instead of constitutionality. You're a joke.

Please. Hop down off of that high horse. The national will only changes their interpretation of the constitution.
And you're certainly not idiotic enough to claim that the constitution isn't open to interpretation.
Hell, everyone knows that it is.

 

[luthervol]

Only to someone with a Constitution be damned agenda.

So if I made a law saying you can't kill your kids, what is going to stop you from killing your kids? If there was no law against killing your kids, would you?

I drive home between 78 and 82 MPH every day. If there was no speed limit, I would still drive that speed. I am breaking existing laws because I choose not to follow them. The willingness to break the law doesn't mean I'm going to drive 145 MPH home everyday. Therefore the law essentially has no effect on me or my behavior whatsoever.

Yes purposefully brutal but proves the point.

How stupid.
If I make a law that says you will be shot on the spot if you wear red on Tuesday, how likely are you to wear red?
Yes, purposefully brutal but proves the point, or better yet, disproves your point.

And I 100% guarantee you that is you see a police officer on the side of the road, you back off of that 82 mph.

 

[hog88]

Please. Hop down off of that high horse. The national will only changes their interpretation of the constitution.
.

That's some banana republic **** right there.

 

[C-south]

Please. Hop down off of that high horse. The national will only changes their interpretation of the constitution.
And you're certainly not idiotic enough to claim that the constitution isn't open to interpretation.
Hell, everyone knows that it is.

There’s nothing to interpret. The people that wrote it made it clear what it meant. Just because you keep saying something doesn’t make it true it only adds to the abundance of ignorance you already possess. Your only hope is to get more looney leftist activists in positions they have no business being in but that’s part of the problem you’re crying about to begin with you’re just not bright enough to see it.

 

[luthervol]

That's some banana republic **** right there.

Act like you have a clue.
Why did it matter if Obama or Trump appointed a SC justice? You know the answer.
Hell, every idiot on this board knows the 9 justices all have differing interpretations.
And they all feel their interpretation is correct.

 

[C-south]

How stupid.
If I make a law that says you will be shot on the spot if you wear red on Tuesday, how likely are you to wear red?
Yes, purposefully brutal but proves the point, or better yet, disproves your point.

And I 100% guarantee you that is you see a police officer on the side of the road, you back off of that 82 mph.

F****** ridiculous analogies. Maybe he’ll be in a looney leftist city where they’ll downgrade it to maroon, release him without bail, and he can go murder when the laws you cry about should’ve prevented it.

 

[hog88]

Act like you have a clue.
Why did it matter if Obama or Trump appointed a SC justice? You know the answer.
Hell, every idiot on this board knows the 9 justices all have differing interpretations.
And they all feel their interpretation is correct.

Absolutely, but any justice that takes the "national will" into consideration when ruling isn't fit to sit on the court.