Gun control debate (merged)

#25,852
#25,852
LouderVol said:
how about the party that thinks AA are incapable of getting an ID?
how about the party that thinks AA are incapable of succeeding on their own and need any number of "equalizers" to be as successful as a middle class white person, ignoring all the poor white people with the same exact problems of the poor AA.
How about the party whose president said: If you don't vote for me you ain't black. Or: Poor children are just as smart as white children. Or how he didn't want his children growing up in a racial jungle. Or how he liked young AA kids touching his harry legs? Or what about him making up bs Corn Pop stories, or Hilaries Hot Sauce.
What about the party who virtue signals by taking a knee in African garb they clearly don't understand, or expect others to understand.
What about the party that specifically creates gun laws designed to ensure AA have more issues getting guns?
What about the party that specifically backs a strategy of abortion founded by a racist woman who pushed eugenics who liked abortion as a way to kill off the black population? Abortion that kills more AA a year than any other source has in 20?
What about the party that pushes policies that destroy families, and reward failure ensuring that generation after generation will not improve themselves?
what about the party who openly embraces segregation as a way forward?
what about the party who can't even reproduce the financial success for black Americans that the racist south provided? Why hasn't there been another black wall street since Tulsa?
why don't we ask Malcom X what he thought about democrats? that seems like it would be a pretty honest thought from an AA.
what about the party that pushes the Big is Beautiful BS, instead of encouraging a somewhat healthy lifestyle?
Click to expand...

"aaaaand...that's a wrap!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, InVOLuntary and StarRaider
#25,853
#25,853
utvols88 said:
If the kid didn't enter or try to open the door, then the homeowner was, at the very least, morally wrong. Self defense may not apply because it'd be hard to argue fearful of your life in that situation. So we have a situation where a prosecution can happen. Why restrict his neighbor from having or acquiring a gun?
Click to expand...

The kid was outside and the shooter deserves prison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, 85SugarVol, NCFisher and 1 other person
#25,855
#25,855
hog88 said:
Actually it's pretty obvious that we do not have a gun problem. The purchase of guns have never been regulated as much as they are today yet when the regulations were much looser we didn't have these issues. We have a people problem, not a gun problem.
Click to expand...


The restrictions are not nearly strong enough.
 
#25,862
#25,862
sonofUT62 said:
No. We have a gun problem in certain elements of society with a few unfortunate situations like this. The county I live in has had 7 shootings in 4 years and 5 of those were domestic.
Click to expand...

What element? Which segment of US society is overwhelmingly over represented in gun crimes? Say it.
 
#25,863
#25,863
luthervol said:
You're still missing the point.
Easy and instant access does not cause a person to consider murder. Easy and instant access makes it easier for a person considering murder to successfully carry out their desire.
Click to expand...

I think your point defeats your point. If I'm considering - planning - to murder someone, you're simply moving the date of the murder to a future date with waiting periods. To effect your end, it would be necessary to forcibly remove guns from the population and remove the ability to murder via gun. Your assumption is the person will not be murdered by other means or the future acquired (after waiting period) gun by the person plotting murder. Which, last I knew, is illegal.

A common example is 'crimes of passion' or IPVs - Interpersonal Violence. Ordinary, normal people in practicality do not suddenly snap and whack their wife but are the culmination of a history of domestic abuse.

Which begs the consideration of the multitudes of people who are spared death or serious injury each year by having the means to protect themselves. What of them? Will you have police dispatched round the clock for their protection while you delay their right to not become a victim? Of course not, it is an impossibility. The fact is, nothing levels the offender/defender playing field as quickly and with more utility than a firearm. While the 2A simply acknowledges - not grants or establishes - the necessity of not allowing government a monopoly of force by acknowledging a right to 'keep and bear arms', it is the primal (as in 'of first order') right to defend oneself against unwarranted aggression that is the basis of the amendment, whomever the aggressor may be. The Bill of Rights is overwhelmingly a distillation of the sound ideas evident in state constitutional conventions that preceded the national. In both we find this primal right discussed, as well as other lawful activities involving firearms.

Oration has always been the first foundational weapon of every dangerous movement and the totalitarian; Stalin summed it (sic) as words/ideas are more powerful than guns; if we would not allow them guns, why would we allow them words and ideas? Until recently, we understood that risk inherent to 'free speech' is necessary to preserve a constitutional republic And if that ability to attempt peaceful reconciliation with government failed, then the next amendment at least protects the fighting chance to reclaim it. Speech rights have degraded to the point in other Western countries, that in practicality it is a facade having not been given the constitutional protection that is unique to the U.S. How did the left come to so devalue both the 1A/2A rights that they no longer wish to respect or retain either?

What waiting period for our liberties shall we have government establish to protect us from them or our murder plotting fellow citizen?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#25,865
#25,865
sonofUT62 said:
Well a graph would seem to indicate that the more stringent the restrictions get the worse the problem gets……soooooo. How bad are you wanting it to get?
Click to expand...

And that’s how all of left wing politics works. When your actual goal is to destroy the system, you only suggest policies you know will fail. Like their love affair with minimum wage.

We all know minimum wage started to hurt black workers. Today it still harms black workers the most. So you say “black people aren’t making enough and are more likely to work these jobs. We have to increase minimum wage!”

Then when you make the problem worse you simply claim “we haven’t done enough”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and NCFisher
#25,870
#25,870
Vol8188 said:
And that’s how all of left wing politics works. When your actual goal is to destroy the system, you only suggest policies you know will fail. Like their love affair with minimum wage.

We all know minimum wage started to hurt black workers. Today it still harms black workers the most. So you say “black people aren’t making enough and are more likely to work these jobs. We have to increase minimum wage!”

Then when you make the problem worse you simply claim “we haven’t done enough”.
Click to expand...

I assert it is the reasoning for an open border, whether by fiat or legislation. It is foolish - or calculated - to not observe that low-skilled workers compete directly with native counterparts. This is to increase the disenfranchisement of the native and increase the subsidized, while putting additional pressure on housing prices until the middle to lower rungs of the statist ladder become open to central planning.
 
#25,871
#25,871
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and hog88
#25,872
#25,872
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, NCFisher, UT_Dutchman and 2 others
#25,874
#25,874
More from the BBC. Look at some of these quotes.

Judge Christine Laing KC said: "The weapon we are concerned with here has absolutely no place in this society."
She added: "I advise you to write to your MPs and ask why it is that weapons like the one you saw in this case can be bought from a website legitimately.
Click to expand...

Well those sentiments sound awfully familiar.

"These weapons are there for anybody to purchase and it is beyond me as to why that is.
"Knife crime in general is becoming the scourge of our society but at the moment people can get weapons like that - it's really quite shocking."
Click to expand...

Shocking availability? Anyone can purchase theses knives?!

Miah was remanded in custody to be sentenced at a date to be fixed. He is also due to be sentenced over a separate hammer attack on a 16-year-old boy.
Click to expand...

Apparently hammers are also a growing problem. Those will need to be heavily regulated too - if not outright banned as well.

Edit: forgot the link
Ghulam Sadiq: Judge makes weapons plea after murder conviction
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCFisher, InVOLuntary and Vol8188
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top