Question for our gun enthusiast friends.

No, you started with the insults and name-calling. I didn't engage.



The stats didn't show that other forms of violence went up, rather that violence overall continued to drop with the gun control.



Because Chicago isn't a country. Most of the guns used in Chicago crime come from out of state. I believe in states' rights, but when it comes to guns, we need federal laws.

We have federal laws. Which you appear to be completely ignorant of


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
You said they were insulting because you thought I was lying. Obviously, I can't control if you think I'm lying.




Because people get guns from other parts of the country. Gun control works when the laws are national, not local.
Gun control doesn't work, period, unless there's no need for it in the first place.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Your usual ignorant BS. Their incidence of gun deaths is unchanged from before they had any gun control laws, as are their homicide rates.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Where guns are restricted, dumbfuck, the gun death rate is lower. Deny all you want. You merely look stupid
 
Banning abortions won't make them stop or go away. This will only cause women to choose alternative, unsafe methods to cause an abortion. Abortions have been happening since people figured out how to end an unwanted pregnancy. Cod liver oil, anyone? More women are going to die if these bills are allowed to stand.

I don't believe in abortions at all, but I do believe that it's not my place to make someone else's decisions for them. I am not pro-abortion, but I AM pro-choice. Women need to be able to have abortions in a safe, legal manner.

More innocent lives are going to be taken if these laws aren't allowed to stand.

If you support a choice that allows abortion, you're pro abortion. The only person you're trying to convince and make feel better is yourself.

Give them coat hangers.
 
And now you'll have to admit that without a brain,. there is no heart pumping.

Ergo: life begins younger then you want it to. :good4u:

A heart CAN pump without a brain. It does not require signals from the brain to pump. However, without a brain, there is no breathing. The heart muscle dies as a result of no oxygen. It pumps useless blood until it dies.

In the womb, of course, the umbilical cord takes place of oxygenating the blood. Therefore, no brain is necessary to pump that blood through the developing body. As long as the mother is breathing, the fetus gets oxygenated blood and no brain is required because breathing is not necessary.

Heart muscle cells will naturally start twitching at regular intervals. If one touches another heart muscle cell, they will synchronize and twitch together. As the heart develops, a few cells take the role of pacemaker and produce the master twitch on their own. This is all you need to make a heart beat. As long as the muscle cells receive oxygen and nourishment, they will continue to beat completely on their own without any brain.

A brain can adjust heartbeat rate, but it is not necessary to make a heart beat.
 
Last edited:
Yes, and it is. Doctors generally consider a person to be dead when the brain stops functioning. Why not be consistent? Life begins and ends with brain activity.

No, life is living cells. No brain, no heart, no organs of any kind are necessary. Life is living cells.

The first living cell with the number of chromosomes and DNA necessary to grow into a human being occurs at conception.

Doctors do not consider a person dead when brain activity stop functioning. There are still many living cells in the body that will go on living for some time. They will eventually die of course without oxygen from breathing (which requires the brain), but they DO survive past the brain itself. Doctors consider loss of the brain a committed path leading to death, not death itself. They stop treatment at that point brain activity is lost because there is nothing more they can do. The result is inevitable.
 
I wasn't stating that the Constitution allowed or disallowed anything. To my knowledge, the U.S. government banned bumpstocks but haven't yet banned assault rifles. From a moral standpoint assault rifles don't have a useful niche in civilian life and many mass shooters use assault rifles that were obtained legally and were only used because they were handy. (in an uncles cabinet or such)

I would personally define an assault rifle as any automatic rifle that is magazine ready or can be fed a continuous supply of munitions so that the operator can fire dozens of rounds in seconds. You can sort out the measurements yourselves.

The U.S. government does not have authority to ban either bumpstocks or automatic weapons.

Most mass shooters use pistols or shotguns. An automatic weapon is not the same as a semiautomatic weapon. You obviously have never learned anything about guns. Who are you to decide what is allowed or not? Who are you to decide what gun is appropriate to own or not? You are not the king.
 
Yes. Just like during prohibition. Drinking was greatly reduced as a whole although a small percentage of people went to secret speakeasies and made their own alcohol. I imagine the same would happen with rifles. Most everyone would go without and only a select few would get rifles some other way and hide them.

Nah. Usually what happens when government tries to seize private property like this is a war.
 
That's literally every rifle since 1886.

He doesn't know anything about guns. That's obvious. Yet he wants to dictate which ones are appropriate for any specific purpose, and he wants to dictate which ones to ban because 'they server no legitimate purpose'.

He wants to be King.
 
Him who? Toxic TOP? That's allegedly a female, if that's who you're talking about. There is no point in murdering the already-brain dead.

Yet you suggested doing exactly that. I'll consider you locked in paradox on this issue. You are going to have to clear this paradox before you can be rational about it. The only way to clear a paradox is choose one of the conflicting arguments and utterly reject the other. So which is it going to be?
 
Go ahead and ban automatic rifles. Leave the semi automatic ones alone and we can agree. :good4u:

Don't think so.

The U.S. government has no authority to ban any weapon because of the type of action it has. There is no such authority given in the Constitution. The 2nd amendment certainly doesn't mention it.
 
Heller said that gun regulation is legal, dumbfuck. You know, that “infringed” thing.

Stupid fuck.
Heller himself didn't say any such thing.

No such ruling was made. Gun regulation was not even part of the case.

Gun regulation is illegal, but that was not brought up as the reason for the lawsuit.
 
Back
Top