Gun control debate (merged)

[bnhunt]

I don’t think he’s a lawyer. He has yet to put forth a single cogent argument to articulate why his feelz trump others rights. F him.

As with the 2A, if it takes reasonable restrictions of individuals' rights, especially in times of national crisis, to protect the general public, then I am okay with it.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[bnhunt]

You're playing the old J. S. Mill "harm principle" argument pretty heavily here, which is fine, but if you're that worried about people being irresponsible, you could, in fact, have the "ability" to keep the kids locked in the house 24/7 by putting deadbolts on the outside. Just sayin'.

So because someone else is being an irresponsible jackass, I have to suppress my and my children's constitutional rights?

 

[Rickyvol77]

So because someone else is being an irresponsible jackass, I have to suppress my and my children's constitutional rights?

I’m still waiting to hear how me owning guns harms others?

 

[bnhunt]

I’m still waiting to here how me owning guns harms others?

Says everyone until they use their guns to harm others.

 

[GordonC]

So because someone else is being an irresponsible jackass, I have to suppress my and my children's constitutional rights?

Nope. You'd have the key, and you don't have to do that.

 

[LouderVol]

I absolutely understand why you don't like the first part as you want no restrictions on your "right" to the unfettered possession of firearms.

Yeah having some random person be able to take away your rights without due process should be celebrated

 

[Rickyvol77]

Says everyone until they use their guns to harm others.

Ok but those are criminals. I’m not a criminal. You’re trying to punish people for crimes they “may” commit

 

[LouderVol]

Letting you people decide who lives and dies seriously concerns me as based on what I've read on this board most of you are not capable of being very rational.

But trusting the government, who definitely doesnt get stuff wrong on the daily with often life taking consequences, is ok?

 

[bnhunt]

Ok but those are criminals. I’m not a criminal. You’re trying to punish people for crimes they “may” commit

That's weak sauce. A lot of those people aren't criminals until after they use their gun unlawfully.

 

[LouderVol]

Letting you people decide who lives and dies seriously concerns me as based on what I've read on this board most of you are not capable of being very rational.

That's not what the 2A does . The 2A doesnt absolve anyone the guilt of their actions. No one is arguing that it should.

You have a really bad stance if you have to lie about the other sides argument to validate your views.

 

[NorthDallas40]

That's not what the 2A does . The 2A doesnt absolve anyone the guilt of their actions. No one is arguing that it should.

You have a really bad stance if you have to lie about the other sides argument to validate your views.

He can’t absorb this. He hasn’t shown any mental capacity to do so.

 

[0nelilreb]

So because someone else is being an irresponsible jackass, I have to suppress my and my children's constitutional rights?

Well during times of crisis ... don’t you believe it’s ok to have you and your children’s rights suppressed ? Or did you just mean that when it comes to others rights?

 

[LouderVol]

Because Joe has a duty not to get other people sick and expose them to potential harm. If he does, then he should be held accountable. Not all of us have the ability to keep our kids locked in the house 24/7.

But joe does?

Again you make really bad arguments.

 

[LouderVol]

So because someone else is being an irresponsible jackass, I have to suppress my and my children's constitutional rights?

That's exactly what you are wanting of us.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

So because someone else is being an irresponsible jackass, I have to suppress my and my children's constitutional rights?

You can not be for real

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Ok but those are criminals. I’m not a criminal. You’re trying to punish people for crimes they “may” commit

He needs a new avitar. I suggest this:

 

[LouderVol]

Says everyone until they use their guns to harm others.

Owning a car. Owning a knife. Owning a just about any tool. It's all a risk.

 

[LouderVol]

Ok but those are criminals. I’m not a criminal. You’re trying to punish people for crimes they “may” commit

Well yeah because our Consitution is based on pre crime.

 

[Rickyvol77]

That's weak sauce. A lot of those people aren't criminals until after they use their gun unlawfully.

So why punish someone before they commit a crime? Do you support this for all crimes?

 

[joevol33]

Well yeah because our Consitution is based on pre crime.

Don't mention the constitution in an argument with a liberal. They'll lose their mind, or start calling you racist!

 

[joevol33]

 

[LouderVol]

View attachment 271117

And according to some that's an issue. They have more of a right to rob you than you do to defend yourself.

 

[joevol33]

And according to some that's an issue. They have more of a right to rob you than you do to defend yourself.

I remember EL getting upset because 2 guys robbing stores got shot. Said if the employee didn't have a gun, then nobody would've died cause they weren't killing people, just robbing them with a gun. Blows my mind people actually think like that.

 

[Carl Pickens]

Why not just relegate them to their room until it passes?

Because that’s what bnhunt would do