Gun control debate (merged)

[NCFisher]

So North Vietnamese couldn't afford food or clothing but they all maintained an arsenal?
Do you history?
Because what it really proves is that you do not need a heavily armed populace. You only need to be able to arm a populace quickly if/when the situation arises.

And lol on your Russian history. When Germany invaded Russia, Russia had 5.5 million in it's standing army. They were not average citizens who brought their own weapons, they were average citizens enlisted during a crisis and armed by the government.

I'll start with the bold; are you saying we would be better off with no arms in the populace, and if we had to fight our government then they'll provide us arms to do so? No? - then WTF are you talking about? It has no applicability to your argument, my comment regarding superior numbers of armed fighters that is the strategy of the 2A origins, and how the U.S keeps getting their ass handed to them by grossly inferior forces.

They (the VC I’m referring to) actually didn't have an arsenal and NV had little industrial base; Russia & China backed their campaign with China's border being a conduit the U.S. could do nothing about. So yeah, they were even lesser still than what you imply. The NVA being military were better equipped & organized, but the U.S. was even then the premier military on earth; that’s the point. Both forces were inferior in every way but were fighting on home soil against a restrained Western foe.

Perhaps you suggesting it's a better idea to be unarmed and revolutionaries solicit help from Russia and China to thwart a rogue U.S. government? Gee, why didn't the framers consider that brilliant strategy?

"LOL" on your incomprehension; 1939 Germany had 80 million citizens, Soviet Russia 160 million. Russia lost >twice as many fighters as Germany, 10.5M to Germany's 4.5M; do you understand the premise now? And why the framers would not handicap the citizenry by barring arms and hoping Canada, Mexico - somebody - would and would be able to SHAZAAM! - suddenly give us weapons to fight the rogue federal government?

Yeah, I history.

 

[turbovol]

I'll start with the bold; are you saying we would be better off with no arms in the populace, and if we had to fight our government then they'll provide us arms to do so? No? - then WTF are you talking about? It has no applicability to your argument, my comment regarding superior numbers of armed fighters that is the strategy of the 2A origins, and how the U.S keeps getting their ass handed to them by grossly inferior forces.

They (the VC I’m referring to) actually didn't have an arsenal and NV had little industrial base; Russia & China backed their campaign with China's border being a conduit the U.S. could do nothing about. So yeah, they were even lesser still than what you imply. The NVA being military were better equipped & organized, but the U.S. was even then the premier military on earth; that’s the point. Both forces were inferior in every way but were fighting on home soil against a restrained Western foe.

Perhaps you suggesting it's a better idea to be unarmed and revolutionaries solicit help from Russia and China to thwart a rogue U.S. government? Gee, why didn't the framers consider that brilliant strategy?

"LOL" on your incomprehension; 1939 Germany had 80 million citizens, Soviet Russia 160 million. Russia lost >twice as many fighters as Germany, 10.5M to Germany's 4.5M; do you understand the premise now? And why the framers would not handicap the citizenry by barring arms and hoping Canada, Mexico - somebody - would and would be able to SHAZAAM! - suddenly give us weapons to fight the rogue federal government?

Yeah, I history.

We haven't had our "ass handed to us by grossly inferior forces" by anyone. We were trying to fight a mostly defensive war in Vietnam, in a geographical environment tailor made for the insurgents who were determined to take the South at any cost--and they paid a heavy price.

The argument that we need a lot of people with guns in America in case there's a need to fight the government sounds like crazy wingnut militia talk. It's the crazy, paranoid wingnuts who hate government who are an embarrassment to this country. These are the twerps that think they're impressing or intimidating people by standing out in public with their assault rifles. Cringe-worthy.

 

[GroverCleveland]

He’s just openly lying at this point

He's trolling. Just saying things to keep everyone engaged with him.

 

[GroverCleveland]

They would be aghast.

They would want to know why we haven't revolted.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Do you think they thought it would be what it is today? If the government wanted you dead do you honestly think your little AR is going to save you?

^^^ This explains why there should be no gun regulation.

 

[NCFisher]

We haven't had our "ass handed to us by grossly inferior forces" by anyone. We were trying to fight a mostly defensive war in Vietnam, in a geographical environment tailor made for the insurgents who were determined to take the South at any cost--and they paid a heavy price.

The argument that we need a lot of people with guns in America in case there's a need to fight the government sounds like crazy wingnut militia talk. It's the crazy, paranoid wingnuts who hate government who are an embarrassment to this country. These are the twerps that think they're impressing or intimidating people by standing out in public with their assault rifles. Cringe-worthy.

Yes, they were willing to pay the heavy price, and they won. Unless you’re suggesting that the US intended to have Vietnam overtaken by the communists and lose Afghanistan to the Islamists in Afghanistan.

And that crazy right wing talk is none other than the founders of this country speaking, who insured the militia was every man capable of fighting and having their own arms to do so. You’re arguing with them.

 

[NCFisher]

TN Guv Bill Lee selling the proposed 'Red Flag' law:



Sign me up for a safer society, Bill!

 

[hog88]

TN Guv Bill Lee selling the proposed 'Red Flag' law:

View attachment 547722
View attachment 547723
Sign me up for a safer society, Bill!

At least this will be opposed by both the anti-2A crowd and the pro-2A crowd.

 

[NCFisher]

At least this will be opposed by both the anti-2A crowd and the pro-2A crowd.

Until they realize they're cooperating.

 

[luthervol]

He’s just openly lying at this point

He's trolling. Just saying things to keep everyone engaged with him.

You guys are proven to have misrepresented what I said and evidently you can't handle it.
Yet you claim I am the one lying and trolling. Sweet....says a lot about your inability to defend your position.

I guess it must be comforting to have such a rigid mindset coupled with the ability to ignore any facts or logic that fall outside of that mind set by simply claiming they are lies or trolling attempts........very Trumpian - or maybe just rightwing.

 

[luthervol]

I'll start with the bold; are you saying we would be better off with no arms in the populace, and if we had to fight our government then they'll provide us arms to do so? No? - then WTF are you talking about? It has no applicability to your argument, my comment regarding superior numbers of armed fighters that is the strategy of the 2A origins, and how the U.S keeps getting their ass handed to them by grossly inferior forces.

They (the VC I’m referring to) actually didn't have an arsenal and NV had little industrial base; Russia & China backed their campaign with China's border being a conduit the U.S. could do nothing about. So yeah, they were even lesser still than what you imply. The NVA being military were better equipped & organized, but the U.S. was even then the premier military on earth; that’s the point. Both forces were inferior in every way but were fighting on home soil against a restrained Western foe.

Perhaps you suggesting it's a better idea to be unarmed and revolutionaries solicit help from Russia and China to thwart a rogue U.S. government? Gee, why didn't the framers consider that brilliant strategy?

"LOL" on your incomprehension; 1939 Germany had 80 million citizens, Soviet Russia 160 million. Russia lost >twice as many fighters as Germany, 10.5M to Germany's 4.5M; do you understand the premise now? And why the framers would not handicap the citizenry by barring arms and hoping Canada, Mexico - somebody - would and would be able to SHAZAAM! - suddenly give us weapons to fight the rogue federal government?

Yeah, I history.

lol.....
The original point you tried to make using historical examples fell completely flat....totally missed the mark. That's ok.

We have 400 million guns and it has already been established that we will not have military grade weapons. I think there is lots of room for additional rational and reasonable regulations that those framers would fully support.

 

[Grand Vol]

Do you think our forefathers thought guns would ever become what they have today? Do you think they ever thought children being murdered at school by crazy people would become a regular occurrence? If they knew then what we know now, don't you think things might have been written a little differently? I do.

When the constitution was written, guns were mostly muskets and flintlock pistols and fired a few rounds a minute if you were skilled.

We as a society are to blame for today's gun violence. The 2nd amendment should have been revised a long time ago. We are seeing the results of trying to govern modern society based off of a 200+ year old document. Society and rules need to change with the world, that much is very apparent.

Lol

Make sure you mail this remark on a horse after writing it with a pen and quill.

 

[MarcoVol]

 

[Jxn Vol]

Do you think our forefathers thought guns would ever become what they have today? Do you think they ever thought children being murdered at school by crazy people would become a regular occurrence? If they knew then what we know now, don't you think things might have been written a little differently? I do.

When the constitution was written, guns were mostly muskets and flintlock pistols and fired a few rounds a minute if you were skilled.

We as a society are to blame for today's gun violence. The 2nd amendment should have been revised a long time ago. We are seeing the results of trying to govern modern society based off of a 200+ year old document. Society and rules need to change with the world, that much is very apparent.

I didn’t stutter

Shall
Not
Be
Infringed

It’s what they wrote.
It’s Law

 

[Jxn Vol]

Do you think they thought it would be what it is today? If the government wanted you dead do you honestly think your little AR is going to save you?

I think they would be more subtle. Maybe like mandating an unproven shot with no long term safety data.

 

[turbovol]

Lol

Make sure you mail this remark on a horse after writing it with a pen and quill.

Ha, ha, ha: Good grief: You've mistakenly reinforced his point!

The world has changed since the 18th century. It's the duty of our lawmakers to recognize that and deal with practical, serious problems, like gun violence. This notion that we should tolerate DAILY mass shootings, kids being murdered in their schools, rampant gun violence, because of a recent interpretation of the 2nd amendment--which has been interpreted in the opposite way in the past and SHOULD be interpreted in the opposite way because it quite clearly puts gun ownership in context of local militias that don't exist anymore and have no need to exist--is insane. Do we want to protect the public from gun violence or continue to ignore a massive problem so some yahoos can play sheriff-wannabe? Tough decision! Hell, in the last week there has been a raft of innocent people shot by gun nuts because they knocked on the wrong door, got into the wrong car, kicked a ball into the crazy neighbor's yard, etc. We sadly have people who are ok with having an uncivilized, dangerous country because they're uncivilized themselves.

 

[luthervol]

I didn’t stutter

Shall
Not
Be
Infringed

It’s what they wrote.
It’s Law

The Supreme Court didn't stutter either.
They have repeatedly ruled that
Shall
Not
Be
Infringed
leaves plenty of room for rational and reasonable regulations and restrictions.

It's what they ruled.

 

[Jxn Vol]

The Supreme Court didn't stutter either.
They have repeatedly ruled that
Shall
Not
Be
Infringed
leaves plenty of room for rational and reasonable regulations and restrictions.

It's what they ruled.

Again

Shall
Not
Be
Infringed

No and if or buts. It’s quite simple if you have a backbone

 

[luthervol]

Again

Shall
Not
Infringed

No and if or buts. It’s quite simple if you have a backbone

It's quite simple if you have a brain and a soul.

 

[Jxn Vol]

It's quite simple if you have a brain and a soul.

It’s quite simple if you can read on a 2nd grade level

Shall
Not
Be
Infringed

careful with the last word. It’s 2 syllables unless you speak Mississippi.

 

[C-south]

Release the Manifesto. We gotta know all the facts for any gun control.

It’s too dangerous and a blueprint for other nutjobs.

 

[NCFisher]

lol.....
The original point you tried to make using historical examples fell completely flat....totally missed the mark. That's ok.

We have 400 million guns and it has already been established that we will not have military grade weapons. I think there is lots of room for additional rational and reasonable regulations that those framers would fully support.

Well, no, that’s your lack of comprehension again. When shown that the US has not been able to defeat inferior enemies and achieve its goals against armed combatants who outnumber it, you quipped

Because what it really proves is that you do not need a heavily armed populace. You only need to be able to arm a populace quickly if/when the situation arises

Which is not a cogent take since those are examples of governments arming people against other governments. You do comprehend that our government is not going to arm us to fight them, right? Then, where would those arms come from If not a heavily armed populace?

That’s the point you would like to pretend isn’t there, and why your response was nonresponsive.

I think there is a vast gulf of difference between what the framers would consider reasonable, and what you consider reasonable. They would likely opine that automatic small arms, the same type as the military carries, are reasonable. That’s the long bridge you have to cross before they would say “oh yeah Luther, he’s a rational guy”.

 

[Orangeslice13]

You seem to miss the point quite frequently. Guns that fire the fastest have not been used because they are not readily available. The guns that have been used are the guns with the fastest legal fire rate that are easily evailable.

Are you starting to get a glimmer?

You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about

 

[volgr]

These are the twerps that think they're impressing or intimidating people by standing out in public with their assault rifles. Cringe-worthy.

I hardly ever see anyone open carry and when I do it is always a handgun.

 

[TN Ribs]

Lol

Make sure you mail this remark on a horse after writing it with a pen and quill.

Your "LOL" remark is not only infantile, it also tells us that you know his post is 100% accurate.
I hope you don't play poker, we know your tell.

I love all the gun nuts on this forum getting all technical about magazines and types of assault weapons, bragging about how many guns they own - all of them clearly compensating for something else.