Gun Monkey Madness!

T. A. Gardner said:
That's true enough. At what point are guns being over regulated?


Correct. Instead, they have a knife violence crisis on their hands.

They have these all over England now.

0_Knife-surrender-bin.jpg


Unlike guns, a knife is almost impossible to regulate since it's simple enough for anyone to make one let alone buy one. They've already made it illegal for anyone under 18 to even buy a knife.

Okay. What is reasonable with firearms?
Click to expand...

I love how DESPERATE you folks are to make anyone else's issues so bad that it forgives Americas APPALLING record with guns.
 
gmark77 said:
I can only think of bad reasons for a need for suppressors. Whining about hearing your girlfriend while you're at the gun range "rubbing one out" with your buddies is not what I would call a rational reason for a suppressor.

But then I don't spend my days rubbing my cock with my male buddies and whining about my girlfriend's questions while I blam blam blam away.
Click to expand...
ah, I see. you're one of those liberal fetishists that look at guns as a phallic symbol. you could always get yourself a boyfriend.
 
Damocles said:
No, the main difference would be the 14th Amendment and whether our rights are incorporated. It's like you think everything existed in a vacuum and no changes were actually made to the contract between the states that created the Federal Government. Back in the day there were states that had official religions because the 1st Amendment was a limit on the Federal Government and not the states. The 14th Changed that.

So, when local authorities ignored the 2nd Amendment, if their state constitution allowed such a thing, it was copacetic, before there was a 14th Amendment. For a long time there was an argument that this one enumerated right was not "incorporated" or "not a personal right"... But the SCOTUS has ruled on those things since. It is a personal right, therefore incorporated...
Click to expand...
Regarding your 1st paragraph: Nice try, but as I previously stated the very creation of the Constitution happened in an extremely polarized environment ... one of the reasons why all those nifty checks and balances were hammered out so that differences could be addressed.
History shows how gun regulation existed even in the early days of America sans the creation of the Constitution. No "vacuum" there. As for "incorporation", www.thegunzone.com/how-does-gun-control-coexist-with-the-14th-amendment/

As to your 2nd paragraph: Not quite as pat as your subjective take would have us believe, as shown in my link above. What you are doing is IGNORING THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION that I laid out via the Jon Stewart links; a shifting towards a "wild west" kind of situation. Obviously, NO ONE has thought through how this is going to fly in an era where you have a gestapo like organization (DHS) running around looking for sleeper terrorist, or monitoring gun trafficking. We already have problems with "iron pipelines"....now any yahoo with some cash can get the gun legally and run willy nilly all over the country. Hmm, I wonder if folk who are dead set against background checks and such will tolerate scrutiny by other states when the cross the border (sorry sir, but we'll hold onto this gun until we can verify your purchase and run a background check)?

A gun monkey madness!
 
archives said:
I don’t give a rat’s ass about silencers, let the gun huggers shoot each other quietly, but the reciprocity bullshit is nuts, major metro areas already have a problem with the Iron Pipeline and now these idiots want to make that legal and above board? Turn those gun regulating Blue States who have less gun violence into more Mississippi and Alabamas?
Click to expand...
I just addressed this in my response to Damo! As for the "suppressors"....imagine some yahoo deciding to go vigilante in another state and he hits an innocent by accident? What if the joker who let loose at the country western concert had silencers on all his weapons? Or the many school shootings? Bad moon rising on this one if it becomes law.
 
archives said:
So you want to ditch States Rights?

There is a patchwork on umpteen laws nationwide, but when it comes to something as deadly as guns, States should have the right to regulate weapons as their citizens decide not what makes it convenient for travelers. And NYC is one of the safest destinations in the US, the last thing it needs is some Rittenhouse thinking he’s going to clean up Hunts Point

And the idiotic Heller decisions, which is right up there with Citizen United and immunity, specified to defense in your home, not traveling across State lines
Click to expand...
Love your answers despite the fact that I have those clowns on "ignore", as trying to have a rational, logical discussion with them eventually feels like banging your head against the wall .... it feels so good when you stop.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
tell me why you think it's lame? what do YOU think suppressors are good for?
Click to expand...
You don't seem to have the basic knowledge of firearms or suppressors to be engaging with others.
Take a seat and read.
fbt.shop

▷ Silencers for weapons EU | laws are different

ll➤ Silencers for weapons EU ✋ Country-specific regulations on the subject of silencers | an overview ✋ Prohibition of purchase, import, possession.
fbt.shop fbt.shop

Then, understand the downsides in that,
They are usually heavy.
They are a bitch to clean.
They change the bullet's point of impact when they are added or removed.
They add length to any firearm, which destroys your theory that gun owners want them for nefarious purposes.
They are far less effective in noise reduction unless the ammo used is subsonic.
Now, go away.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
I got no problem with States rights no more than I have a problem with federal law. They can and do co-exist on many levels. Gun monkeys just want to ignore such when it suits them, then enforce what they want on others (i.e., reproductive rights).
Click to expand...

I'd be glad if America gave up this stupid outdated concept of a loose confederation of states. States Rights was a loser in the Civil War and it remains a loser today. It's precisely how we've ended up with a patchwork of abortion laws relegating women across the board to second class citizens in chattel states.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Got anything other than ad hominem and non sequiturs?
Click to expand...

You do realize that wasn't an ad hominem, right? You are pretty uneducated so I'll help you :

an argumentum ad hominem is when someone points to something about the other poster as an attempt to undercut the validity of their point without addressing the point directly. That's subtly different from an INSULT. What I gave was an INSULT, not an ad hominem as I wasn't bothering to even comment on the validity of their position. I was just insulting them.

I honestly wish you mouth breathing low-IQ types would learn what words mean BEFORE you attempt to impress the peanut gallery with poorly understood things.

Hope that helps.
 
gmark77 said:
I'd be glad if America gave up this stupid outdated concept of a loose confederation of states. States Rights was a loser in the Civil War and it remains a loser today. It's precisely how we've ended up with a patchwork of abortion laws relegating women across the board to second class citizens in chattel states.
Click to expand...
Well son, unless you can magically eradicate numerous ethnic and racial groups to have a "homogenized" society for a few centuries, you're stuck with things as they are .... which is going to take conflicts of interests and people fighting the good fight. No one said life would be easy .... just ask Native Nations folk and black Americans.
 
gmark77 said:
You do realize that wasn't an ad hominem, right? You are pretty uneducated so I'll help you :

an argumentum ad hominem is when someone points to something about the other poster as an attempt to undercut the validity of their point without addressing the point directly. That's subtly different from an INSULT. What I gave was an INSULT, not an ad hominem as I wasn't bothering to even comment on the validity of their position. I was just insulting them.

I honestly wish you mouth breathing low-IQ types would learn what words mean BEFORE you attempt to impress the peanut gallery with poorly understood things.

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...
It was directed at me instead of the topic. That makes it ad hominem.

I love how DESPERATE you folks are
Click to expand...

That directs your comment at me as it is clear you are including me in "you folks." It also wasn't an insult as there was no insult included in what you posted.
 
Lionfish said:
You don't seem to have the basic knowledge of firearms or suppressors to be engaging with others.
Take a seat and read.
fbt.shop

▷ Silencers for weapons EU | laws are different

ll➤ Silencers for weapons EU ✋ Country-specific regulations on the subject of silencers | an overview ✋ Prohibition of purchase, import, possession.
fbt.shop fbt.shop

Then, understand the downsides in that,
They are usually heavy.
They are a bitch to clean.
They change the bullet's point of impact when they are added or removed.
They add length to any firearm, which destroys your theory that gun owners want them for nefarious purposes.
They are far less effective in noise reduction unless the ammo used is subsonic.
Now, go away.
Click to expand...
and yet you gave a link about suppressors with nothing but EU regulations.............

put down the keyboard and back away, slowly
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It was directed at me instead of the topic. That makes it ad hominem.
Click to expand...

Nope. But I know you need it to be that so you can sound smarter than you actually are. Trust me when I tell you that educated people will see through you quickly if you use words incorrectly.

T. A. Gardner said:
That directs your comment at me as it is clear you are including me in "you folks."
Click to expand...

You are an idiot. A low-IQ poster. That is an insult, not an ad hominem. And yes, you are an idiot.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Well son, unless you can magically eradicate numerous ethnic and racial groups to have a "homogenized" society for a few centuries, you're stuck with things as they are .... which is going to take conflicts of interests and people fighting the good fight. No one said life would be easy .... just ask Native Nations folk and black Americans.
Click to expand...

Huh?
 
gmark77 said:
Nope. But I know you need it to be that so you can sound smarter than you actually are. Trust me when I tell you that educated people will see through you quickly if you use words incorrectly.



You are an idiot. A low-IQ poster. That is an insult, not an ad hominem. And yes, you are an idiot.
Click to expand...

To paraphrase what you said to match your response above: 'You are so DESPERATE..." That directs the comment at me. That isn't an insult, it's ad hominem.

ad-hominem-examples.png
 
Taichiliberal said:
The major flaw in your response:

Our Constitution requires far too much consensus to amend now that we've become so polarized.

The very creation of the Constitution happened in an extremely polarized environment ... one of the reasons why all those nifty checks and balances were hammered out so that differences could be addressed.

History shows how gun regulation existed even in the early days of America sans the creation of the Constitution. The only thing that has changed now is the degree of corruption in our electoral system, the degree of corruption regarding the donor class and PAC (i.e., money), and a far more diverse population.

Change is hard, but doing the same (or similar) thing repeatedly and expecting a different/better result is insane.

We already went through a "Wild West" type of nation .... gun control first by individual states and then adjoined by federal law via representation followed. Fortunately for future generations, not all feel as you do.
Click to expand...
I'm not cheering the gun lobby by any means.
There isn't much to do with right wing politics that gets supported by me.

I'm addressing the reality that this nation is too polarized to amend the constitution given how much consensus is required
to do so.

I certainly agree with your implication that the Citizens United opinion was a fucking disaster,
but I don't agree with your reverence for all of the constitution's checks and balances provisions.

Democracy or dictatorship alike, there's no other system of government on the planet as inefficient as ours,
and I'm not inclined to celebrate that. I'm too much of a neat freak to like the loose ends aspects
of our government and economic systems alike.

Many of us here are not.
I get that. I just think
that buying a parliamentary procedure book at Barnes & Noble,
primitive as that would be,
could give us a better form of government
than the founders gave us. Just my opinion.

We have a serious gun problem.
I'm not disputing that.

My point is that I regard it as being far from our biggest problem.
Compared to our other deficiencies, it doesn't bother me as much as it bothers you,
and I feel that there are more pressing problems
that we have a better chance of successfully addressing.

I don't have young children or grandchildren in school.
I don't have the usual liberal paranoia about firearms.
Nobody has been shot in my neighborhood for four or five years, for Christ's sake.

I'd like to have more reasonable gun control without mimicking other nations' overboard prohibitions.

I'd like cradle to grave socialized medicine
and an abolition of "right to work" laws
a whole lot more.
People can have different priorities.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
That's true enough. At what point are guns being over regulated?


Correct. Instead, they have a knife violence crisis on their hands.

They have these all over England now.

0_Knife-surrender-bin.jpg


Unlike guns, a knife is almost impossible to regulate since it's simple enough for anyone to make one let alone buy one. They've already made it illegal for anyone under 18 to even buy a knife.

Okay. What is reasonable with firearms?
Click to expand...
When the proof exists that innocent Americans are no longer in danger if they go to the movies, the mall, the club, the spa, the church, the senior citizen home, the school, the concert, etc., etc., etc., I’d say the right to life supersedes anything in the 2nd Amendment

Knifes don’t kill as many nor as fast as a semiautomatic weapon does, I’d gladly replace the insanity of guns for a knife problem

Reasonable? Personally, I’d make access more difficult, eliminate private sales, treat gun ownership as we do vehicles to include liability insurance, heavily penalize purchase violators, and eliminate the Iron Pipeline. Have no problem with the guy who enjoys hunting, antique collection, competition, but see no purpose for people to be carrying 24/7
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top