Gun control debate (merged)

[kiddiedoc]

Refusing to negotiate will cost you more than a willingness to negotiate.
It's like if an employer calls in an employee and says "we are going to have to let you go, but we would be happy to negotiate some sort of severance, or you can refuse to negotiate and you will simply be fired with no severance - it's up to you, but know we are trying to be rational and reasonable."

Or if one country is obviously on the verge of defeating another and they say "we will gladly sit down and negotiate an end, or you can refuse to negotiate and we will take it all."

LOL

 

[kiddiedoc]

Universal Health care.

LOL

 

[82_VOL_83]

How stupid.
If I make a law that says you will be shot on the spot if you wear red on Tuesday, how likely are you to wear red?
Yes, purposefully brutal but proves the point, or better yet, disproves your point.

And I 100% guarantee you that is you see a police officer on the side of the road, you back off of that 82 mph.

You still are incapable of higher understanding.

 

[kiddiedoc]

They'll eventually follow the national will. (they always do)

WTF?

 

[C-south]

Universal Health care.

So the government will provide free firearms?

 

[85SugarVol]

Refusing to negotiate will cost you more than a willingness to negotiate.
It's like if an employer calls in an employee and says "we are going to have to let you go, but we would be happy to negotiate some sort of severance, or you can refuse to negotiate and you will simply be fired with no severance - it's up to you, but know we are trying to be rational and reasonable."

Or if one country is obviously on the verge of defeating another and they say "we will gladly sit down and negotiate an end, or you can refuse to negotiate and we will take it all."

We’re going to do whatever we want anyways, so you might as well “negotiate”.
- Luther

 

[kiddiedoc]

lThe national will only changes their interpretation of the constitution.

WTF?

 

[VOLS INC.]

Absolutely, but any justice that takes the "national will" into consideration when ruling isn't fit to sit on the court.

Cmon Hog! Keep reading. You must have stopped midway.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

However. The National Will is far superior to anything stated in the previous paragraph.”

 

[K-town Vol Fan]

 

[85SugarVol]

This mindset goes well beyond the 2nd Amendment. The Founders would be disgusted by those saying we should bow to the majority.

 

[NCFisher]

Maybe triggers that can only be pulled once every 5 seconds. Or maybe once every 3 seconds - negotiable - room for compromise.

Guns are purely mechanical devices. In semiautos, the gases from the gunpowder activate the slide or bolt rearward, compressing a spring and ejecting the spent casing on the way rearward, and then pulls another round off the top of the magazine into the chamber on the way forward.

A delay is mechanically impossible. A delay is also highly undesirable; in a sporting arm it serves no purpose. In a defensive arm, it's asking to be dead. A defensive use is not a movie in which villains are sent flying backwards; bullets are tiny things and do not have the mass to deliver that kind of energy. Nor does every round fired stop an aggressor, and multiple rounds can be necessary.

A delay is a non-starter.

 

[kiddiedoc]

Cmon Hog! Keep reading. You must have stopped midway.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

However. The National Will is far superior to anything stated in the previous paragraph.”

I mean that's some crazy ish right there.

I'm done trying to reason with him. 2-3 letter responses only from now on. At best, he's a moron with no understanding of the Constitution, firearms, or anything of actual significance, for that matter. At worst, he is a downright danger to our freedom and the Country we love.

 

[kiddiedoc]

I guess you got high after work, because we already have done basically all of those things.

 

[VOLS INC.]

I mean that's some crazy ish right there.

I'm done trying to reason with him. 2-3 letter responses only from now on. At best, he's a moron with no understanding of the Constitution, firearms, or anything of actual significance, for that matter. At worst, he is a downright danger to our freedom and the Country we love.

His ideas are far more dangerous than the guns he’s so worried about.

 

[NCFisher]

We have NICS, the federal background check.
No Republican opposes enforcing existing gun laws.
Eighteen is an adult. If they can go to war to die, and vote, they should be able to drink and own a gun.
Most can't define an assault weapon, explain how it differs from more powerful rifles, nor why a firearm type that is used in less than 0.035% of firearm killings is reason to shite the bed.
45% of people are more intelligent than the other 55% since concealed carry laws have been enacted nationally as the murder rate halved, and the number of guns have tripled.

 

[C-south]

1) Already have background checks.
2) Any laws not being enforced are in dim areas where they have the toughest laws.
3) Then raise the voting age are well.
4) Assault weapons are banned. At least the ones previously defined. The head of the ATF, DHS, and a multitude of other limp wristed dims can’t even define what one is.
5) Don’t carry if you don’t want to.

 

[kiddiedoc]

1) Already have background checks.
2) Any laws not being enforced are in dim areas where they have the toughest laws.
3) Then raise the voting age are well.
4) Assault weapons are banned. At least the ones previously defined. The head of the ATF, DHS, and a multitude of other limp wristed dims can’t even define what one is.
5) Don’t carry if you don’t want to.

Stop with the facts. This thread is about feelings.

 

[SuzyVol]

WTF?

Maybe he means like SCOTUS did in Dobbs.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

Boom.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94369/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94369.43.0.pdf

 

[luthervol]

Absolutely, but any justice that takes the "national will" into consideration when ruling isn't fit to sit on the court.

LOL....They take it into consideration as they are interpreting.

 

[luthervol]

You still are incapable of higher understanding.

Hate to blow your "point" out of the water.

 

[luthervol]

This mindset goes well beyond the 2nd Amendment. The Founders would be disgusted by those saying we should bow to the majority.

LOL....The founders bowed to the majority. They made lots of concessions to insure enough votes for ratification. They knew better than anyone how it works.

 

[82_VOL_83]

How stupid.
If I make a law that says you will be shot on the spot if you wear red on Tuesday, how likely are you to wear red?
Yes, purposefully brutal but proves the point, or better yet, disproves your point.

And I 100% guarantee you that is you see a police officer on the side of the road, you back off of that 82 mph.

Actually you proved mine. Are you going to enforce that law you made or have someone do it for you? The law does not keep me from wearing red, the punishment might keep me from wearing it. Do you have the will to enforce this law? If so, where is your will to enforce existing gun laws? Your law is quite impossible and mine already exists. So please explain, with a murder law in place, what keeps you from committing murder? Because it's against the law? Is the written law the thing that keeps you from going savage or is there something else? Also, I might slow down for a second or two, but will speed back up when past the cop. In other words, the written law doesn't keep me from committing murder nor does it keep me from speeding. I am the one who is RESPONSIBLE for my actions. I doubt you will understand and this post is simply to explain to others my viewpoints on laws and personal responsibility.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Hate to blow your "point" out of the water.

You didn't.

 

[C-south]

LOL....They take it into consideration as they are interpreting.

So how do they interpret when one of the authors of the 2nd amendment says we have a right and duty to always be armed? That those willing to give up liberty for safety deserve neither? "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."?

There are some MUCH harsher quotes that we all hope never come to fruition.