Im fully aware of what it was. I did say semi autos. In fact I own one similar to the Bushmaster that the killer used...
as far as what you say regarding mental illness. You are correct, as i pretty much stated the same thing. I was just saying had they banned them and found a way to take everyone (which clearly is a pipedream) I wouldn't be up in arms about it. no pun intended
Anything that would result in that happening would also most likely result in the deaths of tens of thousands of law enforcement personal, military personal, or whoever was unlucky enough to be tasked with forcibly removing these firearms from their owners.And that’s just the otherwise law-abiding citizens.Most criminals would still have their guns.
If such foolish action was ever taken I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if the death toll was over 100,000 when it was all said and done.
0
Quote Originally Posted by CrusCrnshw:
Im fully aware of what it was. I did say semi autos. In fact I own one similar to the Bushmaster that the killer used...
as far as what you say regarding mental illness. You are correct, as i pretty much stated the same thing. I was just saying had they banned them and found a way to take everyone (which clearly is a pipedream) I wouldn't be up in arms about it. no pun intended
Anything that would result in that happening would also most likely result in the deaths of tens of thousands of law enforcement personal, military personal, or whoever was unlucky enough to be tasked with forcibly removing these firearms from their owners.And that’s just the otherwise law-abiding citizens.Most criminals would still have their guns.
If such foolish action was ever taken I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if the death toll was over 100,000 when it was all said and done.
SS, clearly doing anything to get rid of them all isn't feasible...was just stated to show I personally wouldn't be too mad
That’s your prerogative.
Personally, I would be upset if tens of thousands of LE personal were killed along with probably 50,000+ civilians for any reason (especially if it was all due to politicians attempting to pi$$ all over the Constitution).
But hey, that’s just me.
0
Quote Originally Posted by CrusCrnshw:
SS, clearly doing anything to get rid of them all isn't feasible...was just stated to show I personally wouldn't be too mad
That’s your prerogative.
Personally, I would be upset if tens of thousands of LE personal were killed along with probably 50,000+ civilians for any reason (especially if it was all due to politicians attempting to pi$$ all over the Constitution).
grandfathered in my butt, if u got an AR15 they'd come after ur behind.
did NOT "they'd come after ur behind" under the LAST Assault Weapons ban. IF it even HAPPENED, it would have "more holes than a swiss cheese" just like the last one did
0
Quote Originally Posted by mainmanmainman2:
grandfathered in my butt, if u got an AR15 they'd come after ur behind.
did NOT "they'd come after ur behind" under the LAST Assault Weapons ban. IF it even HAPPENED, it would have "more holes than a swiss cheese" just like the last one did
Personally, I would be upset if tens of thousands of LE personal were killed along with probably 50,000+ civilians for any reason (especially if it was all due to politicians attempting to pi$$ all over the Constitution).
But hey, that’s just me.
I think it is pretty obvious I mean in a way where no one is hurt, killed or anything of the sort.
0
Quote Originally Posted by StraightShooter:
That’s your prerogative.
Personally, I would be upset if tens of thousands of LE personal were killed along with probably 50,000+ civilians for any reason (especially if it was all due to politicians attempting to pi$$ all over the Constitution).
But hey, that’s just me.
I think it is pretty obvious I mean in a way where no one is hurt, killed or anything of the sort.
Im asking because I dont know, but what were the rates of homicide in terms of total numbers before the ban? Just an educated guess but Id imagine not nearly as high, as Australia's population is about 1/15 of the US.
Taking that into consideration, each homicide holds more water into the % change, just like if there were 2 homicides in Andorra, and the year after there was 1, well that is 50% and only a drop of 1.
Also, I don't necessary believe that what is good for 1 country is good for another, as cultures, values and the like are different.
Australia's population of approximately 30 million is 1/10th of that of the US and is more than legitimate in comparison than anything we could ever propose in theory. Of course their homicides per capita are significantly less given their population is much lower and gun possession rates are much lower to begin with, but comparing it to 1 and 2 murders, while you were only doing that as an extreme example, is not appropriate.
I'm not proposing that the same proportional decrease in homicides would occur in the US with a national gun ban of say, semi-automatic weapons like the ones used in Connecticut.
What I am saying is that Australia serves as a real first world example of the success of a gun ban and even if the US achieved half of their success concerning the decrease in gun homicides nationally, it is a step worth taking.
Please note NONE of what I say or propose or any gun ban can ever prevent another Adam Lanza. There is a larger issue of gun homicides in general that is being proposed outside of aberrant massacre.
0
Quote Originally Posted by CrusCrnshw:
Who is to say that we decrease by 60%?
Im asking because I dont know, but what were the rates of homicide in terms of total numbers before the ban? Just an educated guess but Id imagine not nearly as high, as Australia's population is about 1/15 of the US.
Taking that into consideration, each homicide holds more water into the % change, just like if there were 2 homicides in Andorra, and the year after there was 1, well that is 50% and only a drop of 1.
Also, I don't necessary believe that what is good for 1 country is good for another, as cultures, values and the like are different.
Australia's population of approximately 30 million is 1/10th of that of the US and is more than legitimate in comparison than anything we could ever propose in theory. Of course their homicides per capita are significantly less given their population is much lower and gun possession rates are much lower to begin with, but comparing it to 1 and 2 murders, while you were only doing that as an extreme example, is not appropriate.
I'm not proposing that the same proportional decrease in homicides would occur in the US with a national gun ban of say, semi-automatic weapons like the ones used in Connecticut.
What I am saying is that Australia serves as a real first world example of the success of a gun ban and even if the US achieved half of their success concerning the decrease in gun homicides nationally, it is a step worth taking.
Please note NONE of what I say or propose or any gun ban can ever prevent another Adam Lanza. There is a larger issue of gun homicides in general that is being proposed outside of aberrant massacre.
I have no idea how people can hide behind the constitution like this to justify weapons that do not protect or make this country any better.
Read the original second amendment again, it is not a carte blanche for whatever the hell weapon you want to own you can own.
Hearing this garbage makes a mockery out of the constitution and is offensive to this country.
No way would the founding fathers just turn over and lay down to the gun lobby and manufacturing group like this..its really a sad state this country is in that other citizens would intentionally kill fellow citizens vs give up weapons that do not serve a single purpose or protect you any more than something of less capacity would.
Pathetic..
0
I have no idea how people can hide behind the constitution like this to justify weapons that do not protect or make this country any better.
Read the original second amendment again, it is not a carte blanche for whatever the hell weapon you want to own you can own.
Hearing this garbage makes a mockery out of the constitution and is offensive to this country.
No way would the founding fathers just turn over and lay down to the gun lobby and manufacturing group like this..its really a sad state this country is in that other citizens would intentionally kill fellow citizens vs give up weapons that do not serve a single purpose or protect you any more than something of less capacity would.
So you wouldn’t be mad if the government took away everyone’s semiautomatic weapons without anyone being hurt or killed in the process?
Well as long we are talking about things that wouldn’t make us mad that have a 0% chance of happening:
I wouldn’t be mad if I inherited 50 billion dollars and had daily orgies with Victoria Secret supermodels and other hot female celebrities.
One silly sentence and we are writing comments back and forth about it? Wasnt that important.
Anyways, im with you man, so not sure where this is all coming from...
Scal, I was using an extreme example yes, but it was just to easily illustrate how smaller numbers play larger roles in percentages.
Also, as far as Ive seen Australia's pop is about 22 million, not 30, but for this argument it really is no difference.
I have also heard that gun related deaths have actually risen recently, or something of the sort.
Lastly, for your argument lets say it definitely has been a success, that does not mean that it will work here in the US. very different countries with very different factors. one common denominator does not necessarily equate to things working out like that.
0
Quote Originally Posted by StraightShooter:
So you wouldn’t be mad if the government took away everyone’s semiautomatic weapons without anyone being hurt or killed in the process?
Well as long we are talking about things that wouldn’t make us mad that have a 0% chance of happening:
I wouldn’t be mad if I inherited 50 billion dollars and had daily orgies with Victoria Secret supermodels and other hot female celebrities.
One silly sentence and we are writing comments back and forth about it? Wasnt that important.
Anyways, im with you man, so not sure where this is all coming from...
Scal, I was using an extreme example yes, but it was just to easily illustrate how smaller numbers play larger roles in percentages.
Also, as far as Ive seen Australia's pop is about 22 million, not 30, but for this argument it really is no difference.
I have also heard that gun related deaths have actually risen recently, or something of the sort.
Lastly, for your argument lets say it definitely has been a success, that does not mean that it will work here in the US. very different countries with very different factors. one common denominator does not necessarily equate to things working out like that.
Australia's population of approximately 30 million is 1/10th of that of the US and is more than legitimate in comparison than anything we could ever propose in theory. Of course their homicides per capita are significantly less given their population is much lower and gun possession rates are much lower to begin with, but comparing it to 1 and 2 murders, while you were only doing that as an extreme example, is not appropriate.
I'm not proposing that the same proportional decrease in homicides would occur in the US with a national gun ban of say, semi-automatic weapons like the ones used in Connecticut.
What I am saying is that Australia serves as a real first world example of the success of a gun ban and even if the US achieved half of their success concerning the decrease in gun homicides nationally, it is a step worth taking.
Please note NONE of what I say or propose or any gun ban can ever prevent another Adam Lanza. There is a larger issue of gun homicides in general that is being proposed outside of aberrant massacre.
Let us know when you find a decent sized country that banned guns that was averaging almost 1 firearm per person.
That would actually be relevant.
0
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
Australia's population of approximately 30 million is 1/10th of that of the US and is more than legitimate in comparison than anything we could ever propose in theory. Of course their homicides per capita are significantly less given their population is much lower and gun possession rates are much lower to begin with, but comparing it to 1 and 2 murders, while you were only doing that as an extreme example, is not appropriate.
I'm not proposing that the same proportional decrease in homicides would occur in the US with a national gun ban of say, semi-automatic weapons like the ones used in Connecticut.
What I am saying is that Australia serves as a real first world example of the success of a gun ban and even if the US achieved half of their success concerning the decrease in gun homicides nationally, it is a step worth taking.
Please note NONE of what I say or propose or any gun ban can ever prevent another Adam Lanza. There is a larger issue of gun homicides in general that is being proposed outside of aberrant massacre.
Let us know when you find a decent sized country that banned guns that was averaging almost 1 firearm per person.
There's plenty of evidence and we can simply look to other countries who have passed strict gun laws and look at their crime statistics, specifically by gun.
I'm sure you've heard Australia's homicide by gun decreased by 60% in approximately 10 years (endless on nightly newscasts as I have).
To have an entire first world country with the population equivalent to Canada and statistics to serve as a model of success for stricter gun laws for our nation is something that can't be ignored.
A proportional decrease of 60% or even half that in our country will be well worth the the passing of a law in our country.
And again, you are fooling yourself if you think a frail, shy, introverted kid is going to go soliciting the black market in upper-class Connecticut for semi-automatic weapons.
And even if he did go that far, that is not an excuse for the potential for decreased homicides this country could benefit from by limiting gun possession and production in this country.
Your efforts are futile and puny. There are other things this country should be worried about/focused on other that the occasional homicidal maniac.
0
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
There's plenty of evidence and we can simply look to other countries who have passed strict gun laws and look at their crime statistics, specifically by gun.
I'm sure you've heard Australia's homicide by gun decreased by 60% in approximately 10 years (endless on nightly newscasts as I have).
To have an entire first world country with the population equivalent to Canada and statistics to serve as a model of success for stricter gun laws for our nation is something that can't be ignored.
A proportional decrease of 60% or even half that in our country will be well worth the the passing of a law in our country.
And again, you are fooling yourself if you think a frail, shy, introverted kid is going to go soliciting the black market in upper-class Connecticut for semi-automatic weapons.
And even if he did go that far, that is not an excuse for the potential for decreased homicides this country could benefit from by limiting gun possession and production in this country.
Your efforts are futile and puny. There are other things this country should be worried about/focused on other that the occasional homicidal maniac.
It amazes me how ignorant the average anti-2A person is.Back in 94 they ranted and raved about how evil “assault weapons” were in order to get them banned.They couldn’t care less what the guns could actually do.They simply went after the ones that looked “evil.”
They went after AR-15’s because they looked “menacing,” but left Mini-14’s alone because they looked like hunting weapons even though they have pretty much the same capabilities.
These are the same geniuses that tried to ban pistol grips on rifles and shotguns because they claimed that pistol grips were designed to allow the shooter to fire the weapon from the hip and firing the weapon from the hip magically makes the gun more deadly.
It cracks me up how these simpletons think “assault weapons” are death machines while other semi-automatic rifles that accept high capacity magazines are somehow less deadly simply because they don’t look as scary.
Oh, and do you know what happened after the last ban? The only thing that changed was the prices went up.That’s it.You could still get whatever you wanted; you just had to pay more for it.
In addition very little gun crime involves “assault weapons,” yet the far-left thinks banning them will make a huge impact.
Banning Pistol grips sounds like a financial game.
0
Quote Originally Posted by StraightShooter:
It amazes me how ignorant the average anti-2A person is.Back in 94 they ranted and raved about how evil “assault weapons” were in order to get them banned.They couldn’t care less what the guns could actually do.They simply went after the ones that looked “evil.”
They went after AR-15’s because they looked “menacing,” but left Mini-14’s alone because they looked like hunting weapons even though they have pretty much the same capabilities.
These are the same geniuses that tried to ban pistol grips on rifles and shotguns because they claimed that pistol grips were designed to allow the shooter to fire the weapon from the hip and firing the weapon from the hip magically makes the gun more deadly.
It cracks me up how these simpletons think “assault weapons” are death machines while other semi-automatic rifles that accept high capacity magazines are somehow less deadly simply because they don’t look as scary.
Oh, and do you know what happened after the last ban? The only thing that changed was the prices went up.That’s it.You could still get whatever you wanted; you just had to pay more for it.
In addition very little gun crime involves “assault weapons,” yet the far-left thinks banning them will make a huge impact.
Banning Pistol grips sounds like a financial game.
I have no idea how people can hide behind the constitution like this to justify weapons that do not protect or make this country any better.
Read the original second amendment again, it is not a carte blanche for whatever the hell weapon you want to own you can own.
Hearing this garbage makes a mockery out of the constitution and is offensive to this country.
No way would the founding fathers just turn over and lay down to the gun lobby and manufacturing group like this..its really a sad state this country is in that other citizens would intentionally kill fellow citizens vs give up weapons that do not serve a single purpose or protect you any more than something of less capacity would.
Pathetic..
AR15’s do not protect?That’s interesting considering many people consider it to be the best home defense weapon.
If high capacity magazines don’t protect someone any better than a 10 round magazine then why is it that the police carry high capacity magazines?
The fact that you think semi-automatic rifles “do not serve a single purpose” shows you have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to firearms.But that’s to be expected with anti-gun people.Hell, it’s people like you that want to ban pistol grips on rifles and shotguns because they think they are designed to allow people to fire the weapons from their hip thus making the weapon much more powerful.
With over 300 million firearms and over a billion high capacity magazines in this country it cracks me up that you anti-gun people think taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is somehow going to solve the problem.
If you’re going to speak about what the Founding Fathers would and wouldn’t do I suggest you do a little research on them first as they made their feelings on the 2nd Amendment very clear.
“The few cases wherein these things (proposed Bill of Rights) may do evil, cannot be weighed against the multitude where the want of them will do evil…I hope therefore a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government…”
-Thomas Jefferson
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
-Benjamin Franklin
“Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped.”
-Alexander Hamilton
“No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” -Thomas Jefferson
...
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
I have no idea how people can hide behind the constitution like this to justify weapons that do not protect or make this country any better.
Read the original second amendment again, it is not a carte blanche for whatever the hell weapon you want to own you can own.
Hearing this garbage makes a mockery out of the constitution and is offensive to this country.
No way would the founding fathers just turn over and lay down to the gun lobby and manufacturing group like this..its really a sad state this country is in that other citizens would intentionally kill fellow citizens vs give up weapons that do not serve a single purpose or protect you any more than something of less capacity would.
Pathetic..
AR15’s do not protect?That’s interesting considering many people consider it to be the best home defense weapon.
If high capacity magazines don’t protect someone any better than a 10 round magazine then why is it that the police carry high capacity magazines?
The fact that you think semi-automatic rifles “do not serve a single purpose” shows you have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to firearms.But that’s to be expected with anti-gun people.Hell, it’s people like you that want to ban pistol grips on rifles and shotguns because they think they are designed to allow people to fire the weapons from their hip thus making the weapon much more powerful.
With over 300 million firearms and over a billion high capacity magazines in this country it cracks me up that you anti-gun people think taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is somehow going to solve the problem.
If you’re going to speak about what the Founding Fathers would and wouldn’t do I suggest you do a little research on them first as they made their feelings on the 2nd Amendment very clear.
“The few cases wherein these things (proposed Bill of Rights) may do evil, cannot be weighed against the multitude where the want of them will do evil…I hope therefore a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government…”
-Thomas Jefferson
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
-Benjamin Franklin
“Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped.”
-Alexander Hamilton
“No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” -Thomas Jefferson
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" -Patrick Henry
"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves"
-Richard Henry Lee
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-James Madison
"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
-Thomas Jefferson
“Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.”
-Thomas Jefferson
And those are just a few of them.
If you want to be anti-gun, that’s fine.But don’t pretend like the Founding Fathers would support your opinion when there’s overwhelming evidence that they wouldn’t.
0
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" -Patrick Henry
"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves"
-Richard Henry Lee
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-James Madison
"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
-Thomas Jefferson
“Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.”
-Thomas Jefferson
And those are just a few of them.
If you want to be anti-gun, that’s fine.But don’t pretend like the Founding Fathers would support your opinion when there’s overwhelming evidence that they wouldn’t.
One silly sentence and we are writing comments back and forth about it? Wasnt that important.
Anyways, im with you man, so not sure where this is all coming from...
Scal, I was using an extreme example yes, but it was just to easily illustrate how smaller numbers play larger roles in percentages.
Also, as far as Ive seen Australia's pop is about 22 million, not 30, but for this argument it really is no difference.
I have also heard that gun related deaths have actually risen recently, or something of the sort.
Lastly, for your argument lets say it definitely has been a success, that does not mean that it will work here in the US. very different countries with very different factors. one common denominator does not necessarily equate to things working out like that.
You are one of the few anti-2A people (a term that is my opinion) on this board that I think is capable of having an intelligent discussion on the matter.
However, considering you said you wouldn’t be mad if the government banned semi-automatic weapons, we most certainly are not on the same side in this argument.
0
Quote Originally Posted by CrusCrnshw:
One silly sentence and we are writing comments back and forth about it? Wasnt that important.
Anyways, im with you man, so not sure where this is all coming from...
Scal, I was using an extreme example yes, but it was just to easily illustrate how smaller numbers play larger roles in percentages.
Also, as far as Ive seen Australia's pop is about 22 million, not 30, but for this argument it really is no difference.
I have also heard that gun related deaths have actually risen recently, or something of the sort.
Lastly, for your argument lets say it definitely has been a success, that does not mean that it will work here in the US. very different countries with very different factors. one common denominator does not necessarily equate to things working out like that.
You are one of the few anti-2A people (a term that is my opinion) on this board that I think is capable of having an intelligent discussion on the matter.
However, considering you said you wouldn’t be mad if the government banned semi-automatic weapons, we most certainly are not on the same side in this argument.
SS...I agree with all you have said, so I really have nothing to debate with you.
Maybe my comments regarding getting rid of my bushmaster was just that I am not so attached to it. Who knows really. I didn't put a ton of thought into a comment like that.
Mental illness, our culture and such is the root of this problem, not an AR, not a shotgun, not a semi auto...and we continue to take money away from helping those that are clearly the ones on this invisible "spectrum of insanity"....we are a reactive country, not a proactive, and until that changes, we will continue to have these brutal events.
0
SS...I agree with all you have said, so I really have nothing to debate with you.
Maybe my comments regarding getting rid of my bushmaster was just that I am not so attached to it. Who knows really. I didn't put a ton of thought into a comment like that.
Mental illness, our culture and such is the root of this problem, not an AR, not a shotgun, not a semi auto...and we continue to take money away from helping those that are clearly the ones on this invisible "spectrum of insanity"....we are a reactive country, not a proactive, and until that changes, we will continue to have these brutal events.
I know it is difficult to talk to someone with a different viewpoint..the discussions I've had with gun enthusiasts usually go in this direction because of the aggression most of you seem to have on this issue..and your replies show exactly that. You get irritated and easily upset because of the fear you have regarding someone taking your guns.
The quotes you listed are exactly to the point and I thank you for providing them. Those quotes are all made with specific context and purpose..ALL of which are now pretty much snuffed out. They mention a militia, tyranny and the government. They do not mention or reference the need to out arm yourself against your neighbor (which is the crux of most anti sentiment) nor is the context of scope/scale mentioned..
So to someone like me who is against the kinds of weapons we allow, these quotes and pretty much any historical one do nothing but support my opinion.
Do you think the founding fathers would applaud the deaths of other citizens to the level we have, citizen vs citizen? Do you think the homicide rate of citizen to citizen was at this level back then, and do you think the ideals behind the 2nd Amendment were more against the British rule and to the geographic boundaries they had at the time AND when they were in England?
I stand by what I said, I havent made any insult to you or personal remark..so your insensitivity is all you, I've done and said nothing to make you irritated outside your fear and slanted view on what you have absorbed on this subject.
Nobody is saying all of your millions of guns will be removed and you will be lynched in the streets or thrown in concentration camps..yet that is how you and most gun enthusiasts act on this subject.
Its sad when a decent and noble concept is distorted and turned into something evil and disgusting, all so more profits and money can be made off your collective misguided fears.
0
StraightShooter,
I know it is difficult to talk to someone with a different viewpoint..the discussions I've had with gun enthusiasts usually go in this direction because of the aggression most of you seem to have on this issue..and your replies show exactly that. You get irritated and easily upset because of the fear you have regarding someone taking your guns.
The quotes you listed are exactly to the point and I thank you for providing them. Those quotes are all made with specific context and purpose..ALL of which are now pretty much snuffed out. They mention a militia, tyranny and the government. They do not mention or reference the need to out arm yourself against your neighbor (which is the crux of most anti sentiment) nor is the context of scope/scale mentioned..
So to someone like me who is against the kinds of weapons we allow, these quotes and pretty much any historical one do nothing but support my opinion.
Do you think the founding fathers would applaud the deaths of other citizens to the level we have, citizen vs citizen? Do you think the homicide rate of citizen to citizen was at this level back then, and do you think the ideals behind the 2nd Amendment were more against the British rule and to the geographic boundaries they had at the time AND when they were in England?
I stand by what I said, I havent made any insult to you or personal remark..so your insensitivity is all you, I've done and said nothing to make you irritated outside your fear and slanted view on what you have absorbed on this subject.
Nobody is saying all of your millions of guns will be removed and you will be lynched in the streets or thrown in concentration camps..yet that is how you and most gun enthusiasts act on this subject.
Its sad when a decent and noble concept is distorted and turned into something evil and disgusting, all so more profits and money can be made off your collective misguided fears.
I’ve changed my opinion on major issues like abortion and the death penalty.I’m a very open minded guy and more than willing to change my beliefs.However, I must see an intelligent and compelling argument first and I haven’t seen anything even closely resembling that from you anti-2A types.
I love how I provided plenty of quotes about the 2nd Amendment from the Founding Fathers clearly showing that they would NOT agree with your belief yet you somehow think that supports your claim that they WOULD agree with you.
That’s like someone telling you that the entire starting offense for a team you’re betting on got seriously injured and won’t be able to play and then you claim that only strengthens their chances of covering.
Like I said: the Founding Fathers made their feelings about the 2nd Amendment abundantly clear.Perhaps you missed the quote made by some guy named Benjamin Franklin that said “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
You think my post was “insensitive” to you?Well gee golly, I certainly didn’t mean to hurt your feelings.In the future I’ll try to treat you with kid gloves so you won’t be so emotionally devastated when I point out your fallacies.
“Nobody is saying all of your millions of guns will be removed”
You obviously don’t spend much time in the GD (or haven’t been paying attention) because I’ve seen multiple people here voice support for such action.
“...all so more profits and money can be made off your collective misguided fears.”
That’s interesting considering that’s exactly what the anti-2A zealots have done to you.They have you so worked up and terrified about “assault weapons” that you adamantly support their banning even though you clearly don’t even know what they are.
I couldn’t help but notice you didn’t address most of the questions and comments directed at you. But I’m sure it’s simply because you didn’t see them.It couldn’t possibly be that you can’t answer/address them because your entire argument is based on emotion rather than logic and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
0
I’ve changed my opinion on major issues like abortion and the death penalty.I’m a very open minded guy and more than willing to change my beliefs.However, I must see an intelligent and compelling argument first and I haven’t seen anything even closely resembling that from you anti-2A types.
I love how I provided plenty of quotes about the 2nd Amendment from the Founding Fathers clearly showing that they would NOT agree with your belief yet you somehow think that supports your claim that they WOULD agree with you.
That’s like someone telling you that the entire starting offense for a team you’re betting on got seriously injured and won’t be able to play and then you claim that only strengthens their chances of covering.
Like I said: the Founding Fathers made their feelings about the 2nd Amendment abundantly clear.Perhaps you missed the quote made by some guy named Benjamin Franklin that said “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
You think my post was “insensitive” to you?Well gee golly, I certainly didn’t mean to hurt your feelings.In the future I’ll try to treat you with kid gloves so you won’t be so emotionally devastated when I point out your fallacies.
“Nobody is saying all of your millions of guns will be removed”
You obviously don’t spend much time in the GD (or haven’t been paying attention) because I’ve seen multiple people here voice support for such action.
“...all so more profits and money can be made off your collective misguided fears.”
That’s interesting considering that’s exactly what the anti-2A zealots have done to you.They have you so worked up and terrified about “assault weapons” that you adamantly support their banning even though you clearly don’t even know what they are.
I couldn’t help but notice you didn’t address most of the questions and comments directed at you. But I’m sure it’s simply because you didn’t see them.It couldn’t possibly be that you can’t answer/address them because your entire argument is based on emotion rather than logic and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
SS...I agree with all you have said, so I really have nothing to debate with you.
Maybe my comments regarding getting rid of my bushmaster was just that I am not so attached to it. Who knows really. I didn't put a ton of thought into a comment like that.
Mental illness, our culture and such is the root of this problem, not an AR, not a shotgun, not a semi auto...and we continue to take money away from helping those that are clearly the ones on this invisible "spectrum of insanity"....we are a reactive country, not a proactive, and until that changes, we will continue to have these brutal events.
Fair enough.
0
Quote Originally Posted by CrusCrnshw:
SS...I agree with all you have said, so I really have nothing to debate with you.
Maybe my comments regarding getting rid of my bushmaster was just that I am not so attached to it. Who knows really. I didn't put a ton of thought into a comment like that.
Mental illness, our culture and such is the root of this problem, not an AR, not a shotgun, not a semi auto...and we continue to take money away from helping those that are clearly the ones on this invisible "spectrum of insanity"....we are a reactive country, not a proactive, and until that changes, we will continue to have these brutal events.
You accuse everyone of not addressing questions and comments you make. Nothing could be further than the truth. You are blinded by your entrenched feelings on this issue and come off as quite a fool.
0
You accuse everyone of not addressing questions and comments you make. Nothing could be further than the truth. You are blinded by your entrenched feelings on this issue and come off as quite a fool.
You accuse everyone of not addressing questions and comments you make. Nothing could be further than the truth. You are blinded by your entrenched feelings on this issue and come off as quite a fool.
Haha, you are at it again.You go from gun thread to gun thread making a complete a$$ of yourself refusing to answer other’s questions, but demanding they answer yours and once it finally dawns on you that you’ve lost the argument you leave (usually not before make some pathetic generic insult), and then you start the cycle over in another thread.
I mean hell kid, most anti-gun people at least ATTEMPT to make some kind of intelligent argument every once in a while, but you don’t even bother with that.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Allbutbroke:
You accuse everyone of not addressing questions and comments you make. Nothing could be further than the truth. You are blinded by your entrenched feelings on this issue and come off as quite a fool.
Haha, you are at it again.You go from gun thread to gun thread making a complete a$$ of yourself refusing to answer other’s questions, but demanding they answer yours and once it finally dawns on you that you’ve lost the argument you leave (usually not before make some pathetic generic insult), and then you start the cycle over in another thread.
I mean hell kid, most anti-gun people at least ATTEMPT to make some kind of intelligent argument every once in a while, but you don’t even bother with that.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Banning Pistol grips sounds like a financial game.
Hot Forum Topics
