Gun control debate (merged)

#24,176
#24,176
bnhunt said:
One is too many, which is why we need stricter gun laws that we actually enforce. If it results in one less death, then it is worth it IMO.
Click to expand...
just take away their right to be innocent until proven guilty, if it saves one life then it is worth it. No right to face their accuser in trial, if it saves one life. Just take away their 4th amendment rights, if it saves one life.

Why doesnt the opposite apply? Why not arm people if it saves one life. Because the math is pretty simple between a disarmed population and an armed one. Mass murders only happen when one side is disarmed, like you are proposing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, StarRaider and GroverCleveland
#24,180
#24,180
0nelilreb said:
If there are violent people , have always been violent people , always will be violent people intent on killing as many as possible … why on earth would any political party ( our leaders ) ask us to give up the tool we use to combat those people and rely on law enforcement? There’s zero logic to that .
Click to expand...
No one (at least not me) is asking you to give up what you already have or your right to purchase and own a firearm.
I'm just trying to keep nukes and anti-aircraft weaponry out of the hands of the people who would use them for mass destruction.
 
#24,182
#24,182
LSU-SIU said:
Than why is there nukes or do the people with nukes not have a functioning brain? :confused:

The point being, the people that want to do bad... would rather nobody have guns to protect themselves. Just like the people with control over nukes, don't want you to have them. There is no real gun problem, there is a people problem. I haven't seen any of the nutjobs identify the problem let alone address it.
Click to expand...
What person or people have nukes? Countries have nukes, and that is EXTENSIVELY regulated and controlled.......because it is rational and reasonable to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bnhunt
#24,183
#24,183
hog88 said:
I would rather live free with the risks that come along with freedom than be subjugated and safe.
Click to expand...
That's where we completely disagree. I would rather my kids be safe and have more restrictive gun laws. Easy tradeoff IMO.
 
#24,184
#24,184
LouderVol said:
just take away their right to be innocent until proven guilty, if it saves one life then it is worth it. No right to face their accuser in trial, if it saves one life. Just take away their 4th amendment rights, if it saves one life.

Why doesnt the opposite apply? Why not arm people if it saves one life. Because the math is pretty simple between a disarmed population and an armed one. Mass murders only happen when one side is disarmed, like you are proposing.
Click to expand...
Apples to oranges comparison. And you actually think arming more people will create less gun violence? That seems completely counter-intuitive to me.
 
#24,185
#24,185
luthervol said:
No one (at least not me) is asking you to give up what you already have or your right to purchase and own a firearm.
I'm just trying to keep nukes and anti-aircraft weaponry out of the hands of the people who would use them for mass destruction.
Click to expand...

That’s some impressive tap dancing .
 
  • Like
Reactions: bnhunt, LSU-SIU and StarRaider
#24,187
#24,187
bnhunt said:
That's where we completely disagree. I would rather my kids be safe and have more restrictive gun laws. Easy tradeoff IMO.
Click to expand...

Your kids are overwhelmingly in more danger from poisoning , overdoses and alcohol related deaths than firearms but you are will to trade off everyone’s rights for the lesser of those dangers . That’s some reasonable and rational left wing propaganda right there .
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, Rickyvol77, 82_VOL_83 and 1 other person
#24,188
#24,188
luthervol said:
No one (at least not me) is asking you to give up what you already have or your right to purchase and own a firearm.
I'm just trying to keep nukes and anti-aircraft weaponry out of the hands of the people who would use them for mass destruction.
Click to expand...

Well, I would say you are wrong...see thread.

As far as your comments in particular, you are by passing what I said and why I said it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman
#24,190
#24,190
bnhunt said:
Apples to oranges comparison. And you actually think arming more people will create less gun violence? That seems completely counter-intuitive to me.
Click to expand...

You still haven't identified the problem so if you can't do that, why would anyone care what your input is to potential solutions?

What is the actual problem? When we break down the information you provide, its very obvious its not saying what you want it to say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#24,191
#24,191
luthervol said:
No one (at least not me) is asking you to give up what you already have or your right to purchase and own a firearm.
I'm just trying to keep nukes and anti-aircraft weaponry out of the hands of the people who would use them for mass destruction.
Click to expand...
So guilty until proven innocent in your book. Thank God the FF didnt hold your beliefs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, Rickyvol77 and StarRaider
#24,193
#24,193
luthervol said:
What person or people have nukes? Countries have nukes, and that is EXTENSIVELY regulated and controlled.......because it is rational and reasonable to do so.
Click to expand...
Its regulated and controlled by the people who have the nukes. And it makes sure those with the nukes keep them, and no one else gets them to threaten those with nukes.

And so far, it's only been our rational and reasonable country that has nuked someone else, and it was someone without nukes or even the threat of nukes that got hit, while the extremists are 0'fer. You can understand why countries not armed with nukes are leery of those who are armed with nukes.

That same nation that has nuked someone else is also the ones telling us to disarm from our guns. The same nation with a very long and active list of maltreating, to put it lightly, groups they have disarmed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSU-SIU and GroverCleveland
#24,194
#24,194
LouderVol said:
So guilty until proven innocent in your book. Thank God the FF didnt hold your beliefs.
Click to expand...
The FF also only believed that landowners should have the right to vote, recognized no women's rights, and had no issue with slavery. You good with all those beliefs?
 
#24,196
#24,196
bnhunt said:
The FF also only believed that landowners should have the right to vote, recognized no women's rights, and had no issue with slavery. You good with all those beliefs?
Click to expand...
don't lawyers have to swear an oath to support the USC? why did you do that if you hate it so much?
 
#24,197
#24,197
bnhunt said:
The FF also only believed that landowners should have the right to vote, recognized no women's rights, and had no issue with slavery. You good with all those beliefs?
Click to expand...

The FF gave us the levers to change the document whenever we wanted , to make it fit our needs . I’m perfectly pleased with their design and encourage anyone to use that power.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, 85SugarVol and hog88
#24,200
#24,200
bnhunt said:
That's where we completely disagree. I would rather my kids be safe and have more restrictive gun laws. Easy tradeoff IMO.
Click to expand...

You have yet to show any evidence that more restrictive gun laws would keep your kids safe.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top