Serious question Re: guns

ZenMode said:
The day before it passed, I could buy an AR-15. The next day I couldn't because the government took away my ability to do it.

That is text book "Losing a right".
Click to expand...
So one day you can buy Product A, and the next day you can't because it has been deemed via trial and error, research actual experience to be dangerous to the general public.

That's what gov't is suppose to do ... "promote the general welfare and all that".

Your "right" does NOT supersede the general safety of the public. Never has. That's why you can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun anywhere on a house property in an urban setting (and for the most part, suburban as well).

Them's the brakes, son. Now you have the "right" to own a WHOLE LOTTA OTHER WEAPONS, just not a relative few deemed to dangerous for the general public. The various mass shootings using a formerly banned weapon should have taught you that. But insipidly stubborn people couldn't give a damn about other lives outside of themselves and family/friends. A pity.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Exactly what "freedom" was taken away when the AWB of 1994 was in place? Weren't there a ton of rifles, shotguns, revolvers and semi-auto handguns still available at the time (as well the same as now)? And in New York City or the Long Island suburbs, what does carrying a gun allow you to do that you couldn't before? Be honest!
Click to expand...
Freedom of choice, Faggotronius Maximus.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Exactly what "freedom" was taken away when the AWB of 1994 was in place? Weren't there a ton of rifles, shotguns, revolvers and semi-auto handguns still available at the time (as well the same as now)? And in New York City or the Long Island suburbs, what does carrying a gun allow you to do that you couldn't before? Be honest!
Click to expand...
One has to realistically understand the true reason behind the founders placing the right to bear arms where they did before asking questions about lost freedoms.
Come back to us when you've explained the historical events and reasoning about 'shall not be infringed'
 
Taichiliberal said:
So one day you can buy Product A, and the next day you can't because it has been deemed via trial and error, research actual experience to be dangerous to the general public.

That's what gov't is suppose to do ... "promote the general welfare and all that".

Your "right" does NOT supersede the general safety of the public. Never has. That's why you can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun anywhere on a house property in an urban setting (and for the most part, suburban as well).

Them's the brakes, son. Now you have the "right" to own a WHOLE LOTTA OTHER WEAPONS, just not a relative few deemed to dangerous for the general public. The various mass shootings using a formerly banned weapon should have taught you that. But insipidly stubborn people couldn't give a damn about other lives outside of themselves and family/friends. A pity.
Click to expand...
"Now you have the "right" to own a WHOLE LOTTA OTHER WEAPONS, just not a relative few deemed to dangerous for the general public."

That's exactly what I said when I made the comparison to pitbulls vs other dogs, except there isn't a constitutional amendment explicitly stating our right to own dogs. There is a right to bear arms and, regardless of how you want to rationalize it, a right was lost when AR's were outlawed.

That IS the answer to your question.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
The FACT is that YOU NEVER HAD THE "RIGHT" TO ANY TYPE OF WEAPON YOU WANTED. Since you were born, there were state and federal gun regulations .... LIMITS ... as to what type of weapon was "legal" for a civilian to have. Grow a pair and do some honest research on the subject ... hell, when there was only one type of gun/rifle in colonial America, there were RULES as to what was necessary to be part of the local militia, particularly about upkeep and such of the weapon.

Again, your childish fantasy as to interpreting the 2nd Amendment just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. But being an insipidly stubborn, ALL facts aren't necessary.
Click to expand...
This is the idiocy I was referring to. You look at the 2nd Amendment in a modern viewpoint based upon the brainwashing and propaganda you wish to believe and not in it's classic originalist intent of the founders. Again, come back to us when you can accept the truth of the 2nd Amendment.
 
Crepitus said:
walking around acting as if you're in a war zone in an American city is.
Click to expand...
Trying to misrepresent my position isn't going to help. I've never called any US city a war zone, nor does it have to be to know that murders, deadly assaults, robberies, muggings, etc happen every day.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
This is the idiocy I was referring to. You look at the 2nd Amendment in a modern viewpoint based upon the brainwashing and propaganda you wish to believe and not in it's classic originalist intent of the founders. Again, come back to us when you can accept the truth of the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...
Do you think the founders had smartphones, chat forums, Facebook and the Internet in general in mind when they ensured free speech?
 
ZenMode said:
Trying to misrepresent my position isn't going to help. I've never called any US city a war zone, nor does it have to be to know that murders, deadly assaults, robberies, muggings, etc happen every day.
Click to expand...
I'm not misrepresenting anything. Most people are perfectly fine to walk around without carrying deadly force. You guys act like going to the grocery store is a trip to downtown Baghdad.

You want that walk to be safer? Then put less guns on the street, not more.
 
Crepitus said:
Ma

I'm not misrepresenting anything. Most people are perfectly fine to walk around without carrying deadly force. You guys act like going to the grocery store is a trip to downtown Baghdad.
Click to expand...
You are misrepresenting by implying that I think we are in a war zone to justify being armed and you continue to misrepresent with this:

"You guys act like going to the grocery store is a trip to downtown Baghdad."
You want that walk to be safer? Then put less guns on the street, not more.
Click to expand...
Creating laws, like NY, has that disallow carrying guns in public, on puts innocent people in danger because law-abiding citizens DO follow the law, and leave their guns at home while criminals don't.
 
ZenMode said:
You are misrepresenting by implying that I think we are in a war zone to justify being armed and you continue to misrepresent with this:

"You guys act like going to the grocery store is a trip to downtown Baghdad." Creating laws, like NY, has that disallow carrying guns in public, on puts innocent people in danger because law-abiding citizens DO follow the law, and leave their guns at home while criminals don't.
Click to expand...
Lol, nope. You are the one representing it that way. Not me.

the second half of your post doesn't show in the quote for some reason but ask yourself, why do those criminal have so many guns?
 
Crepitus said:
Lol, nope. You are the one representing it that way. Not me.

the second half of your post doesn't show in the quote for some reason but ask yourself, why do those criminal have so many guns?
Click to expand...
Acknowledging that crime happens, and that guns protect people from those crimes, is not calling anything a warzone.

They have guns because guns are easily accessible in the US because we have a constitutionally protected right to own them.

My last post:

You said: You want that walk to be safer? Then put less guns on the street, not more.

I said: Creating laws, like NY has, that disallow carrying guns in public, only puts innocent people in danger because law-abiding citizens DO follow the law, and leave their guns at home while criminals don't.
 
Last edited:
Crepitus said:
Gee, too bad guns are so generally available. I wonder how that happened.

Maybe we need some better gun control.
Click to expand...
what would be better gun control? feel free to explain and give details.

when you say that guns are so 'generally available', you must mean that almost all people are untrustworthy and criminalistic, when the real problem is not enough guns in the hands of the right people. The anti gun left is so intent on criminalizing self defense and destroy the good gun culture, so much so that those good people don't want to risk having their lives and livelihood ruined by a demented ideology of the left.
 
ZenMode said:
Do you think the founders had smartphones, chat forums, Facebook and the Internet in general in mind when they ensured free speech?
Click to expand...
I don't think they gave a damn about the medium, only that the right was protected. Do you believe that the founders secretly wanted limitations on fundamental rights?
 
Crepitus said:
I'm not misrepresenting anything. Most people are perfectly fine to walk around without carrying deadly force. You guys act like going to the grocery store is a trip to downtown Baghdad.

You want that walk to be safer? Then put less guns on the street, not more.
Click to expand...
and those very criminals will then use knives, or clubs, or simply outnumber their victims. will you then advocate for cutting off their hands? prohibiting people from gathering in groups of more than two?

It is IMPOSSIBLE to deny weapons to people that would use them for criminal conduct, so how does it make sense to deny them to people trying to defend themselves?
 
Taichiliberal said:
So one day you can buy Product A, and the next day you can't because it has been deemed via trial and error, research actual experience to be dangerous to the general public.

That's what gov't is suppose to do ... "promote the general welfare and all that".

Your "right" does NOT supersede the general safety of the public. Never has. That's why you can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun anywhere on a house property in an urban setting (and for the most part, suburban as well).

Them's the brakes, son. Now you have the "right" to own a WHOLE LOTTA OTHER WEAPONS, just not a relative few deemed to dangerous for the general public. The various mass shootings using a formerly banned weapon should have taught you that. But insipidly stubborn people couldn't give a damn about other lives outside of themselves and family/friends. A pity.
Click to expand...
He’s assuming it’s a right to possess any gun, carry it anywhere, for any purpose. That’s an erroneous assumption and has NEVER been the case in the entire history of the country.

The NRA has been very successful at undermining any effort for reasonable gun control. Convincing so many gullible morons that ANY restrictions on weapons is unconstitutional.

If one really read the history behind the 2nd Amendment, they would know it was in the context of military use, not the bullshit it’s morphed into today. Madison originally wrote it with a conscientious objector clause, obviously used only in military context.
 
domer76 said:
He’s assuming it’s a right to possess any gun, carry it anywhere, for any purpose. That’s an erroneous assumption and has NEVER been the case in the entire history of the country.

The NRA has been very successful at undermining any effort for reasonable gun control. Convincing so many gullible morons that ANY restrictions on weapons is unconstitutional.

If one really read the history behind the 2nd Amendment, they would know it was in the context of military use, not the bullshit it’s morphed into today. Madison originally wrote it with a conscientious objector clause, obviously used only in military context.
Click to expand...
The above is all revisionist history. in other words, it's wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top