No Longer a Joke: Killings at Waffle House

#253
#253
SpaceCoastVol said:
Tell us oh wise one. Especially since you and the other leftists on here have pointed out numerous times that the Bible thumping, gun loving knuckle dragging mouth breathers are the culturally inept ignorant masses that just don't understand what the highly educated left finds so obvious.
Click to expand...

I would start with the inability to accurately access another's point of view.
 
#254
#254
luthervol said:
Because a crime has been committed with all evidence pointing to future more serious crimes being committed. The better question is why would you not report the theft?
Click to expand...

cops are a pia that is more than likely never going to see my gun returned to me if it is used in another crime.

snitches get stitches

because of all the other mass murdering ARs I might own and need to keep hidden

I like how you haven't addressed my efficiency question yet.
 
#255
#255
LouderVol said:
cops are a pia that is more than likely never going to see my gun returned to me if it is used in another crime.

snitches get stitches

because of all the other mass murdering ARs I might own and need to keep hidden

I like how you haven't addressed my efficiency question yet.
Click to expand...

What was the question?
 
#256
#256
LouderVol said:
So why do we need more laws if you don't know how efficient the current ones are? Right now they seem incredibly efficient. something like 99.999% efficient based on the number of these scary guns out there waiting to kill.

again this is a case of the people failing, the laws are already there, people upholding them failed. if you just add more laws you aren't going to increase the efficacy but instead are just introducing more ways they will get stuff wrong.
Click to expand...

for luther.
 
#257
#257
SpaceCoastVol said:
In the zombie apocalypse, someone will take his stuff. And I am not going to waste MY ammo protecting him either. Especially since in his world I will only have a reasonable and rational amount. **** him, he's on his own.
Click to expand...

I would be hard pressed to do that. According to my wife if being a dumbass was a fatal offense I’d already be pushing up daisies.

Would I forsake my own to help? Absolutely not. But try to help I would I hope.
 
#258
#258
NorthDallas40 said:
2a places zero limitations on the type of or amount of arms as it is written. I don’t see how this is even debatable if you just read the text. It’s very clear.

Here is 2a. Show me where type of arms is explicitly limited.
Click to expand...



Because back then they had zero concept of the firepower people can buy now with minimal background or even purely for criminal purposes.

The only thing the glut of guns out there has bought us is the need to buy even more guns to protect us from the crazies, the drugged out punks, and the criminals.

The situation is completely out of hand, any rational person can see that. The far right needs to drop this absolutist nonsense and work with the 80 pct to come up with reasonable restrictions on putting more guns into the stream.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#261
#261
lawgator1 said:
Because back then they had zero concept of the firepower people can buy now with minimal background or even purely for criminal purposes.

The only thing the glut of guns out there has bought us is the need to buy even more guns to protect us from the crazies, the drugged out punks, and the criminals.

The situation is completely out of hand, any rational person can see that. The far right needs to drop this absolutist nonsense and work with the 80 pct to come up with reasonable restrictions on putting more guns into the stream.
Click to expand...

They weren't stupid men, they knew technology would improve firearms just as they knew printing would improve. They didn't put restrictions on either for a reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#262
#262
lawgator1 said:
Because back then they had zero concept of the firepower people can buy now with minimal background or even purely for criminal purposes.

The only thing the glut of guns out there has bought us is the need to buy even more guns to protect us from the crazies, the drugged out punks, and the criminals.

The situation is completely out of hand, any rational person can see that. The far right needs to drop this absolutist nonsense and work with the 80 pct to come up with reasonable restrictions on putting more guns into the stream.
Click to expand...

Bull****. You’re claiming that the same individuals who just threw the worlds toughest standing army off their land by force would be willing to limit the power of the people in the future to do so again?! Absolutely asinine. This worn out and stupid rhetoric has no merit and no teeth.

Screw you guys and your increased gun control. If anything changes we need to get back to a more pure 2a stance from where I’m sitting.

And stop telling me what I need to discuss to give up my rights and my property. It’s none of your damn business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#267
#267
luthervol said:
I'm starting to piece together the great mystery of how supposedly educated people can venture so far from reality.
Click to expand...

Anyone viewing your take on the 2A would think the same...and be able to support their argument with a lot more than some "x and y" nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#268
#268
luthervol said:
Then it wouldn't be reasonable or rational to expect you to report the theft. comprehend........
Click to expand...
The problem is that this 'law' again, would only tend to persecute law abiding people by them having to prove their innocence

Law abiding citizen: "I didn't know the gun was stolen"
Sgt Friday: "OK, prove that you didn't know"

In case you didn't know it luther, that goes in direct opposition to the Constitution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#269
#269
luthervol said:
I would start with the inability to accurately access another's point of view.
Click to expand...
Your point of view has zero concession towards those whose rights you seek to water down. That is painfully obvious.

I have rights granted me under the Constitution. You want some of those taken away. I get nothing in return.

I would say you are correct. You have zero clue about others' point of view.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#270
#270
NorthDallas40 said:
I would be hard pressed to do that. According to my wife if being a dumbass was a fatal offense I’d already be pushing up daisies.

Would I forsake my own to help? Absolutely not. But try to help I would I hope.
Click to expand...
Well the leftists would be safe in a zombie apocalypse anyway. Zombies eat brains. Like bullets, the left would be in short supply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#271
#271
lawgator1 said:
Because back then they had zero concept of the firepower people can buy now with minimal background or even purely for criminal purposes. it was even easier back then. and yes they would have had a pretty good idea on how destructive things can be. I would rather be shot by a 308 than a musket.

The only thing the glut of guns out there has bought us is the need to buy even more guns to protect us from the crazies, the drugged out punks, and the criminals. so you agree the government shouldn't be trusted with more guns?

The situation is completely out of hand, any rational person can see that. The far right needs to drop this absolutist nonsense and work with the 80 pct to come up with reasonable restrictions on putting more guns into the stream.
Click to expand...
to the last your reasonable restrictions is always going to "more". whatever we do short of a full ban you will be clamoring for "more". even after a ban of new you will want to get rid of whats out there.
 
#272
#272
luthervol said:
To address the things that can be improved, and eliminate obvious loopholes.
Click to expand...

you are going to magically make people smarter about guns while vilifying them? new laws aren't going to do what you want. they are going to have the same flaws.

actually enforce what is there. hold your government responsible to itself and us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#273
#273
lawgator1 said:
Oh please. They weren't clairvoyant.
Click to expand...

lol. yup absolutely no advancements were being made in the firearm/warfare industry at the time. none whatsoever. they just magically had what they had, and further there had been a convention where everyone got together and said enough is enough, we don't need any more we have to stay as we are.

you are so full of ish lg
 
#275
#275
The Ron Mexico said:
So you’re saying we should legalize murder because people are going to do it anyways?

If we outlaw murder, only outlaws will murder?
Click to expand...

Ron, you know I love you, and I know you're not being 100% serious, but laws, imo, should be about infringing the rights of others. Murder infringes upon someone's right to live. Owning a gun, even a powerful gun, doesn't infringe upon anything. People like shiny and powerful things. Do we honestly need fancy sports cars? Of course not, but people love them, and how many people do cars kill a year? Should we have stopped with the Model T? It's not about ownership, it's about the owner. Personal responsibility does not get the attention it should. We're too busy blaming progress.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top