Biden admits truth Finally amazing

Chaz said:
Why does he need the permission of douchy progressives, such as you?
Click to expand...

Because there is no intelligence in your bs article .. which is why you made no attempt to defend that ignorance. It’s a weapon of mass murder and NO ONE should have ‘right’ to a weapon of mass murder. It’s just that simple.
 
Bulletbob said:
Well sorry but that inst really a valid argument , you see you need a Id to open a bank account cash a check by cigarettes or booze even if stopped by the police you should have one or expect issues. and they are fairly inexpensive under 20.00 in most states and are good for several years.

now if your talking about a insurance policy that will cost 20.00 for 4 years and cover all my guns that would be fine but we all know thats not how it would work is it .
It would be far more money then that and probably come with all kinds of restrictions.
Click to expand...
Of course you disagree. You want to eat your cake and keep it too. You want no regulations on an enumerated right but have no problem restricting others from their inalienable rights because you don't like their income or politics.
 
archives said:
There is no analogy there between the two, one is addressing a defined right, the other, debatable, plus, one is specified in law, again the other, not so, no existing law that says you can not regulate firearms
Click to expand...
You are 100% wrong since I just made one. :D

Like I told Bob, there are rights regardless if they are enumerated or inalienable. You, too, are agreeing that authoritarian domination of the nation is a good thing, as long as it's only your team's say so. What you don't understand is that I'm totally against giving that much power to the Federal government. State government? A little more different. A town or local government, a lot looser restrictions since the contact between the citizenry is so much closer.

The only real rule is to not take away the rights of another citizen. Shooting them in the head, stabbing them, poisoning them or running them down with a car are crimes because they deprive another citizen of their right to live.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
You are 100% wrong since I just made one. :D

Like I told Bob, there are rights regardless if they are enumerated or inalienable. You, too, are agreeing that authoritarian domination of the nation is a good thing, as long as it's only your team's say so. What you don't understand is that I'm totally against giving that much power to the Federal government. State government? A little more different. A town or local government, a lot looser restrictions since the contact between the citizenry is so much closer.

The only real rule is to not take away the rights of another citizen. Shooting them in the head, stabbing them, poisoning them or running them down with a car are crimes because they deprive another citizen of their right to live.
Click to expand...

You did make the analogy but I wouldn’t agree it is relevant for the reasons I stated above

And what you are missing regarding “rights” is that none are absolute, in any form, and accordingly, all rights are based upon reason, not desire
 
archives said:
You did make the analogy but I wouldn’t agree it is relevant for the reasons I stated above

And what you are missing regarding “rights” is that none are absolute, in any form, and accordingly, all rights are based upon reason, not desire
Click to expand...
Agree to disagree.

A mistake in line with giving up rights out of convenience or fear. Did you support the Patiot Act? I didn't. Would you have supported FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans at Manzanar? I wouldn't have, but plenty of people like you and Bob did.

Getting rights back after giving them away is very, very difficult and usually involves blood, violence and death. Better, IMO, to not give up those rights in the first place.
 
Port Tack said:
Where is it written you can't use a Thompson sub machine gun?

The supreme court has already ruled that there are certain firearms that can be deemed illegal. You cannot own them. That does not mean you do not still have the right to keep and bear arms, just not that particular one. If a state or the Federal govt were to rule that the AR-15 (or guns like it) were declared illegal it would not mean citizens do not still have the right to keep and bear arms.

50 cal machine guns, mortars, grenades, Abrams tanks, ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads are arms too and you can't "keep and bear" one of them either.
Click to expand...

Actually you can own most of those with the right level FFL. I don't know of a level of FFL that lets you own warheads, but most of those other things can be acquired with the right fees and certifications.
 
Port Tack said:
And the government, which is the people, have already determined that you can not own certain types of arms and if they decide the assault weapon or AR15 is to be one of them then the ones you own will be illegal. It is that simple and there will be nothing "unconstitutional" about it.
Click to expand...

Technically, with the right Court make up, anything can be deemed constitutional. Slavery was considered constitutional originally, but I guess that shows you the worth of government in general.
 
Port Tack said:
Stupid argument,knives are essential and everyone uses one every day, you can't make them illegal, you can outlaw assault weapons.
Click to expand...

Sadiq Khan disagrees with you. Knives could potentially be ruled as not essential with the sufficient leftists running things, as shown by London.
 
Port Tack said:
The stupid "what is an assault weapon" argument. It's real easy, any rifle that can fire rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger (semi automatic) and hold more that 5 rounds without reloading. I always found it odd that those who profess they know what they are talking about when discussing guns don't know what the fuck someone is talking about when they say "assault weapon".
Click to expand...

So, all semiautomatic rifles should be banned? Good luck removing about 80% of the rifles in circulation.
 
Nordberg said:
If you use a weapon and innocent people get hurt, you should pay for the damage you caused. That is how auto insurance work. If you hurt someone by your bad actions, their pain and suffering is compensated. An auto is dangerous. So are guns. Guns are worse because they are designed to hurt or kill people.
Click to expand...

Um, what makes you think that you aren't held liable for harming others or property with a gun?
 
blackascoal said:
Because there is no intelligence in your bs article .. which is why you made no attempt to defend that ignorance. It’s a weapon of mass murder and NO ONE should have ‘right’ to a weapon of mass murder. It’s just that simple.
Click to expand...

Any gun can be a weapon of mass murder, so unless you're proposing we ban all guns, you're inconsistent.
 
archives said:
Just like automobiles, the more guns you possess the more insurance you need, and, similar to auto liability insurance, you have to obtain the insurance annually. Why shouldn’t those that have no need for guns have some protection from those that misuse guns

And it is always interesting how the many forget that Stephen Paddock and others like him were all “good guys” with a gun prior to the second they pulled the trigger making them the “real criminals” gun owners are supposedly protecting themselves from
Click to expand...

Except, if I have a huge car collection and never drive them, then I don't need liability insurance on them at all. Misusing a firearm in an accidental case, your homeowner's or renter's insurance would cover. Misusing one illegally or criminally, no insurer will cover that. Why would any reasonable person need separate insurance for firearms?
 
Saudade said:
Any gun can be a weapon of mass murder, so unless you're proposing we ban all guns, you're inconsistent.
Click to expand...

ON6520n.jpg


The Tutsi in Africa used little more than those to commit genocide against the Hutu. Mass murder can be perpetrated in a whole range of ways other than use of a firearm. Why single them out?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
ON6520n.jpg


The Tutsi in Africa used little more than those to commit genocide against the Hutu. Mass murder can be perpetrated in a whole range of ways other than use of a firearm. Why single them out?
Click to expand...

I totally agree, but I'm trying to show how their logic doesn't have any logical end to it. They're tilting at windmills with this "weapon of mass murder" argument, but the anti-gun crowd has never been known for its logic.
 
Port Tack said:
Stupid argument, knives are essential and everyone uses one every day, you can't make them illegal, you can outlaw assault weapons.
Click to expand...

you're right....we should use an example of something which isn't essential...........there should be a mandatory buy back of two bedroom houses.......they serve no purpose that three bedroom houses do not fill......
 
Port Tack said:
The assault rifle does not have to be fully automatic or "selective fire". The 30 cal carbine that our forces used in WWII is an assault rifle and they were not selective fire.
Click to expand...

I doubt many people on this thread have any assault rifles. Most of us have semi-automatic, magazine-fed "assault weapons". They are not the same thing.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you're right....we should use an example of something which isn't essential...........there should be a mandatory buy back of two bedroom houses.......they serve no purpose that three bedroom houses do not fill......
Click to expand...
Or 2500 sq ft houses. Four people can adequately sleep in a single room. Private transportation contributes to global warming so they'll want to ban that too. Mandating bus rides, even if it takes four hours to get to work, is still "Greener".

Save energy by making all the clothes the same. Like this:

11dz0z.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top