Gun control debate (merged)

[luthervol]

Ummm that would be the CDC .. didn’t we just get a good look under that hood recently ?

What? Your claiming the CDC is the only place where firearm research and study takes place? That's an odd take.
Was there a problem under their hood?

 

[hog88]

I think people who research and study gun issues in order to write legislation know a little something about guns.

You think wrong. A perfect example was the assault weapons ban, nothing but cosmetics.

 

[luthervol]

You mentioned the laws stopped Timothy, I figured you were referring to him since he didn't use a firearm.

No. Timothy Jenkins.

 

[luthervol]

Yeah, regulating magazine capacity is pointless.

Nope - you're simply wrong on that.

 

[hog88]

Nope - you're simply wrong on that.

Show me how.

 

[luthervol]

You think wrong. A perfect example was the assault weapons ban, nothing but cosmetics.

Then why were gun nuts so upset?

 

[hog88]

Then why were gun nuts so upset?

We should all go nuts and oppose stupid legislation.

 

[luthervol]

Show me how.

If you make magazines with more than x capacity illegal, then the number of magazines in circulation with over x capacity will go down over time.

 

[luthervol]

We should all go nuts and oppose stupid legislation.

You said it was meaningless, nothing but cosmetics. Seems nutty to go nutty over something like that.

 

[lawgator1]

Did the law preventing hi-cap mags do it's job here or not? Did the mental health law here prevent the dude from purchasing or not? Did the laws against murder prevent him from murdering?

This is terrible logic. The standard is not perfection and you cannot let the search for the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[NorthDallas40]

If you make magazines with more than x capacity illegal, then the number of magazines in circulation with over x capacity will go down over time.

Two people have said you’re wrong and provided a technology means to support their stance. Your support for your stance thus far in reply is “Nuh uh!”.

Once a 3D program is generated and in circulation people will churn these things out with ease.

 

[Grand Vol]

Is there any help I can bring to this thread?

 

[NorthDallas40]

Is there any help I can bring to this thread?

Not unless you take Luther off of ignore.

 

[Grand Vol]

Not unless you take Luther off of ignore.

Yeah once you guys figure out he's never going to be rationalized with, you're better off.

 

[hog88]

You said it was meaningless, nothing but cosmetics. Seems nutty to go nutty over something like that.

All meaningless, stupid and ineffective legislation should be opposed.

 

[hog88]

This is terrible logic. The standard is not perfection and you cannot let the search for the perfect be the enemy of the good.

You can when the legislation will only impact the law abiding.

 

[luthervol]

Two people have said you’re wrong and provided a technology means to support their stance. Your support for your stance thus far in reply is “Nuh uh!”.

Once a 3D program is generated and in circulation people will churn these things out with ease.

lol....
Numbers will still decrease significantly overall.

 

[Orangeslice13]

how many old people in Congress are trying to write tech laws?

All these people seem to know is how to get elected and use it to get rich.

Exactly

 

[hog88]

lol....
Numbers will still decrease significantly overall.

Minuscule at best.

 

[InVOLuntary]

This is terrible logic. The standard is not perfection and you cannot let the search for the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I'm sure it's terrible logic from a liberal standpoint. Liberalism is the anti-logic. It's 100% logical to say there were laws in place that should have prevented this that didn't work. The fact is laws against inanimate objects never work. The problem with you liberals is that you want to blame anything but the person when it comes to crime.

 

[NorthDallas40]

lol....
Numbers will still decrease significantly overall.

Lol. You’re clueless.

 

[Orangeslice13]

You're sounding like a defender of the woman's groups who feel the same about men governing their reproductive rights.

Consistency is important.
I absolutely think the people writing laws should be educated on the subject. And speaking of…
The difference being that the 2a is specifically about firearms. There’s no reproductive amendment. Either that should be kicked back to the states or the Congress should do it’s job and add an amendment to the constitution.
Pretty simple really.

 

[luthervol]

You can when the legislation will only impact the law abiding.

That's an absurd take also.
You could apply that "logic" to all laws.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Yeah once you guys figure out he's never going to be rationalized with, you're better off.

It’s satisfying in a cruel way like pantsing the special needs kid.

 

[luthervol]

Minuscule at best.

Substantially over time.
But we will not agree.
I'm getting bored.