Question for our gun enthusiast friends.

domer76 said:
You fucking morons keep telling us that mass shootings are such a miniscule part of the entire number of shootings. How many are involved in other shootings, asshole?


https://www.nrablog.com/articles/2016/7/buying-and-selling-firearms-part-6-straw-purchases/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/

Refute my sources with one of your own. 79% of crimes committed by a person that wasn’t the owner. Only 30% were stolen.
Click to expand...

Again, I never said mass shooting were minuscule, did I?

Go to your ghettos and ask, that's where most are used.
 
RB 60 said:
Again, I never said mass shooting were minuscule, did I?

Go to your ghettos and ask, that's where most are used.
Click to expand...

Sad little barrel stroker. I just kicked your ass with stats and you can’t refute a single one.

Go stroke your barrel, cunt.
 
domer76 said:
You fucking morons keep telling us that mass shootings are such a miniscule part of the entire number of shootings. How many are involved in other shootings, asshole?


https://www.nrablog.com/articles/2016/7/buying-and-selling-firearms-part-6-straw-purchases/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/

Refute my sources with one of your own. 79% of crimes committed by a person that wasn’t the owner. Only 30% were stolen.
Click to expand...

A miniscule part. There are far more shootings in shooting ranges, people that hunt, etc.

You are making a compositional error fallacy. Just because someone shoots a gun does NOT mean it was used in a crime!

You should be careful of this particular fallacy. If the class involved people, it is bigotry. In this case, the class involved guns.
 
Flash said:
And what are people like you doing about it rather than distorting the meaning of the Constitution on internet message boards?
Click to expand...

The Constitution is it's own meaning. YOU keep trying to change it. You edit every quote you make of it, and post out of context.
 
Having a gun in the house increases your chances of someone in your family getting shot. If having a gun is worth that to you, then like most gun nuts, build an armory. Could that money have better uses?
 
Gonzomin said:
Having a gun in the house increases your chances of someone in your family getting shot. If having a gun is worth that to you, then like most gun nuts, build an armory. Could that money have better uses?
Click to expand...

This BS has been posted before and it's still BS; because no one has posted anything to support it, except for opinion pieces or someone blog.
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
What if? Or WTF if? LOL!

I love what if's, because what-if's make you think!

OK, so, What if it came down as a challenge to the Supreme Court by some state, and the Supreme Court ruled that the requiring people to have a Driver's License or forcing people to register their vehicles was against the Constitution, so therefore States could no longer require people to have a drivers license or have to register their automobiles with the state? Sounds silly, I know, but what do you think would happen to society as we know it?

I know what it would be- Your 20 mile trip through traffic to work would look like something you saw in a Mad Max movie- That's what!

Do you think it would be safe to drive? Do you think the public would be safer? Do you think you would ever buy a used car again? Do you think car thefts would rise? Do you think the police would have fun trying to resolve crimes, when there is no registration on vehicles? In other words, a bank gets robbed, a witness tells police the getaway car was a 2 door white Toyota Corolla, the driver and the other two bank robbers wore masks.

Or, a 2 door White Corolla just Hit & Run, after running over a 5th grader, and fled the scene, according to a witness- no registration!

How do you think you would feel if drivers licenses or automobile registrations were no longer required to drive any automobile on the street, and your daughter takes the car out to pick up some fast food, and is hit by someone who is drunk, the killer runs away from the scene, she's killed, and NO REGISTRATION on the car to investigate the crime?

Let me tell you what you would do- You would be asking yourself and your state officials why are we just letting anyone who wants to drive drive, and why do we not have a registration process in place? That's what you would do!

And you would be just like any one of these parents who's children were murdered in their classrooms by some asshole who purchased a machine gun from his neighbor, and the shooter turned out to have a mental illness? Would you be mad? Would you be upset? Would you be upset that the
mentally ill person was allowed to buy a gun from his neighbor or even have a gun in the first place? Would you be upset that the neighbor was allowed to just sell his gun to anyone who was willing to buy it?

You bet you would! And if you truly loved your daughter, you would want to see whatever regulations could be put in place that would have deterred him from being able to just sell his gun to just anyone.
Click to expand...

You are glaringly ignorant. You can't just go buy a machine gun from your neighbor. Automatic weapons are very tightly controlled and very difficult to legally obtain. Driving a car, even owning one, is a privilege, not a right. And how do you propose registering guns so you can visually identify them? As it is, anyone can buy or drive a car, as long as they don't do it on the public roads. And it's easy to steal license plates and put them on an unlicensed vehicle. Driver's ed is part of the public school curriculum. Gun safety education should be, too. But that would reduce the public paranoia about guns, so the control freaks are opposed to it. Their dogma is more important than the lives that would be saved.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
Come on RB, let's set every other political difference we may have aside, and look at the gun issues in a non-partisan non-political way, and lets you and I both just discuss gun issues like two gentlemen without all of the silly insults and tired-old politically redundant and out-dated cliche's.

The reason why I ask you to look at my idea of registration specifically, is because, I think we both want our public to be safe, we both want to help police keep us safe as well, we both own guns, we both want only responsible people with good intentions to own guns, and we both certainly do not want guns to land in the hands of those who are not trustworthy or potentially could be dangerous to our society.

So right there, you and I want a lot of the same things. We are not enemies.

Now, I have had my thoughts on Gun Registration for many many years. But, I would have never looked at registration, if there were one thing about it, that was against the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment.

I think where we may disagree is how the 2nd Amendment is worded. The use of the word "Infringed" may be what confuses many people today just as the word "Militia" may also be confusing people today.

First of all our Constitution guarantees and insures citizens of the United States and the people "overall" to be a free society and insures we the people remain free. Our forefathers did not want to "Infringe" on people's freedom either. Yet, right now, we have over 2.3 million people incarcerated in jails and prisons across the country. And, justifiably so, if you can catch my drift. It is because, after a due process of law, all of these people were found guilty by judge and jury to have violated either a state, federal, or local law and their freedom had to be taken away from them.

Should we infringe upon someone's freedom to own or pursue Nuclear Bombs, Hand grenades, WMD's of any kind? ? That certainly is not in the Constitution and I think we both know the reason why! However, our "Militia" is certainly not "Infringed" to have them or use them.

But these are tired old arguments that could certainly be debated just as the 2nd Amendment is as Old and Tired in itself as well.

But even with all that being said, let's set the debates on all that aside for a moment, and I ask you only this question.

I would like to know if you agree that your state should have a registration for vehicles, and that drivers should have a license, and why?

If you do not agree that your state should have a mandatory vehicle registration process, and/or should also have a mandatory requirement that people should be required to obtain a license to drive, please advise the forum of why you do not believe we should!

Let's just establish that- and then we can more effectively debate the pro's and con's of Gun Registration!

Or, you can just tell me to Fuck Off, insult me, for just trying to have a very important debate on this very serious subject that weighs on every mind in the country in one way or another.
Click to expand...
There's absolutely no benefit to gun registration. It's all all just wishful thinking. Canada abandoned most of their gun registry because it was expensive with no benefit.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Into the Night said:
The Constitution is it's own meaning. YOU keep trying to change it. You edit every quote you make of it, and post out of context.
Click to expand...

I don't try to change anything. I just describe reality based on how the law is interpreted and enforced. I don't always agree but it is still the law. It serves no purpose in telling the courts, legislative and executive branches they are all interpreting it wrong just because you disagree.
 
Flash said:
I don't try to change anything.
Click to expand...
Yes you do. Don't lie. You are trying to change the Constitution of the United States.
Flash said:
I just describe reality
Click to expand...
Really?? Define it then. Bet you can't. I already know the definition of 'reality'.
Flash said:
based on how the law is interpreted and enforced.
Click to expand...
The law does not define 'reality'. Neither does its interpretation or enforcement.
Flash said:
I don't always agree but it is still the law.
Click to expand...
Void argument fallacy. What is still the law? What law?
Flash said:
It serves no purpose in telling the courts,
Click to expand...
Courts do not make law.
Flash said:
legislative and executive branches they are all interpreting
Click to expand...
The make law. They don't interpret anything. They may only make law that they have authority to make according to the Constitution, and only through the means described in that Constitution.
Flash said:
it wrong just because you disagree.
Click to expand...
You are trying to change the Constitution through a Consensus Fallacy.
 
Into the Night said:
Yes you do. Don't lie. You are trying to change the Constitution of the United States.

Really?? Define it then. Bet you can't. I already know the definition of 'reality'.

The law does not define 'reality'. Neither does its interpretation or enforcement.

Void argument fallacy. What is still the law? What law?

Courts do not make law.

The make law. They don't interpret anything. They may only make law that they have authority to make according to the Constitution, and only through the means described in that Constitution.

You are trying to change the Constitution through a Consensus Fallacy.
Click to expand...

What provision(s) of the Constitution am I trying to change?

I'm not the one who claims naturalization includes immigration.
 
Flash said:
What provision(s) of the Constitution am I trying to change?

I'm not the one who claims naturalization includes immigration.
Click to expand...

I have already told you. You are trying to place the courts above the Constitution and install them as an oligarchy. You have openly tried to change the first amendment. You have openly tried to cancel the Constitution through the 'welfare clause'. You have openly tried to modify the 2nd amendment. You have openly tried to modify other amendments as well. Perhaps you have a memory problem. You should look into it.
 
Into the Night said:
I have already told you. You are trying to place the courts above the Constitution and install them as an oligarchy. You have openly tried to change the first amendment. You have openly tried to cancel the Constitution through the 'welfare clause'. You have openly tried to modify the 2nd amendment. You have openly tried to modify other amendments as well. Perhaps you have a memory problem. You should look into it.
Click to expand...

The problem is with your imagination. I never mentioned the "welfare clause," I don't want to make any changes in the 2nd Amendment.

I did discuss the 1st Amendment and function of the courts in practice, but just to explain your misconceptions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top