SOME GUN RELATED QUESTIONS FOR LIBERALS:

[Into the Night]

"Bizarre"!!!! A "bazaar" is like an outdoor fair, idiot!

Being a grammar cop isn't helping you. The meaning was clear, even if the spelling was wrong.

We're taking your stupid killing machines, Suzie. The whole world has seen your ass. You suck.

Try it. See what happens.

 

[LurchAddams]

Into the Night. Fuck off. I'm not reading your shit.

 

[Into the Night]

The only fear I have is of your ignorance and red-neckery.

Nah. You are afraid of guns. You have a bad case of hoplophobia.

It's killing our children.

You don't give a damn about the children. They are just pawns to you. You support killing children.

I know you don't care about anything but hugging that stupid AR, you're only little friend close to you.

Think about that. Now...

We know your priorities now, you useless fuck. Guns over kids. The whole world saw you last week, Mary Beth.
We're getting them now. You fucked up, bitch.

...try to take it away. Just try it. See what happens.

 

[Into the Night]

If assault type weapons

No such thing.

were banned

Unconstitutional.

and it was a felony to sell one to your buddy,

Unconstitutional.

Ramos would not have been able to buy one at a store.

Irrelevant. You can't blame a store owner for selling an item that is later used to commit a crime. You can't blame the other people that bought an AR-15 from that store either.

He would have to either steal one from someone who has one or find someone willing to sell him one and risk being an accessory to 19 murders. Not likely.

Oh? A school shooting in Marysville, WA took place under exactly that scenario. The gun was stolen.

It's also not likely that he would have attempted this with a handgun, he wanted the thrill of being GI Joe.

The Marysville, WA shooting was with a handgun. Most school shootings are with handguns, not an AR-15 or any other rifle.
The most commonly used weapon was a handgun or multiple handguns, which were used in 1,344 incidents. A rifle or multiple rifles were used in 107 incidents.

You are the one insane thinking he would be able to get his hands on one.

Nah. That's you...thinking you can get away with banning guns and trying to take them away.

I did not suggest taking anyone's guns away, not even those with an AR type.

Yes you did, liar.

Because that is ridiculously expensive and really won't work. What makes you think if armed police are too chickenshit to go after a shooter that your 3rd grade teacher is going to be able to?

Because that 3rd grade teacher is on the site and braver than the cops?

I blame both, if the fucker did not have that gun 19 kids would still be alive.

If the fucker didn't go to the school to shoot those kids they would still be alive. No, you can't blame the gun and then say you don't blame the gun.

We have, they all have been mentally deranged, why the fuck do we sell the mentally deranged machine guns?

Not a machine gun. Define 'mentally deranged'.

We can't even initiate a red flag law that allows people to point the fuckers out so we don't sell them guns.

Because it's unconstitutional, just like infringing on the people's right to own a gun. Any type of gun.

How do you prevent the mentally deranged

Define 'mentally deranged'.

from getting these guns

You can't.

if the background checks don't look at anyone's mental stability much less prevent them from buying one?

Unconstitutional.

They don't work asshole.

Locking a door doesn't work????!?

That door this shooter walked in was supposed to be locked. A teacher said she thought it was locked.

So the door wasn't locked. Yet you say locking a door doesn't work. Which is it, dude? You are locked in another paradox.

a democracy.

The United States was never a democracy. It was organized as a republic. A democracy has no constitution and no representatives.
NO form of government, no matter how oppressive, has the capability to take away an inherent right. The right of self defense is an inherent right.
The Constitution of the United States prohibits any State or the federal government from infringing on this right.

If the people don't want these guns available to anyone they can pass laws to prevent it. Don't like it, eat shit.

No, they can't. Unconstitutional.

 

[Into the Night]

Your questions were fucking stupid. If this country were to ban the sale of these military weapons these whackos would have a hard time getting their hands on one. You don't even have to confiscate the ones already out there.

So you have no intention of answering the question posed in the OP. You are trolling.

 

[Into the Night]

LOL.. yes, I'm illiterate. What a BIZAAR thing for you to say So if you don't own any military rifles, you'll be fine. You're just a stupid troll.

Blow me, beeyach.

Inversion fallacy. Trolling.

 

[Into the Night]

Fuck you, troll. I'm done dancing with you, bitch.

We're getting the guns.

Try it. See what happens.

 

[Into the Night]

Logical fallacies may seem like fun but they are logical fallacies.

Void argument fallacy.

You start out with a strawman argument where you claim the other side has argued that gun regulation will stop all mass murders. That is your strawman.

Fallacy fallacy. Democrats have made this exact argument. He is simply pointing it out. It is used as a setup to the question, which you refuse to answer.

Then you pile on with a false dichotamy fallacy where you argue that if all mass murders are not stopped then the laws are a failure.

Fallacy fallacy. No dichotomy occurred.

Let's modify this to see if you can answer one that is similar.

Given the fact that current voting laws don't stop voter fraud, why do you believe that additional laws will stop voter fraud?

So give us your answer right after you tell us when you stopped beating your wife. A loaded question is always a loaded question and yours was certainly a loaded question. If you want to prove it wasn't a loaded then answer my question which I readily admit is a logical fallacy.

Evasion. A loaded question is not a fallacy. It can result in one, true, but in this case it doesn't because it's predicate is a legitimate question.

If you truly believe that more laws won't stop mass murders than you must also truly believe that more laws won't stop voter fraud.

They don't. Pivot fallacy.

The insanity is yours since the question you asked only reflects your thinking and not the thinking of anyone on the left.

It IS the argument made by the left. He is simply pointing it out.

Once again, you provide us with the same fallacy.

Fallacy fallacy. No fallacy occurred here, except by you.

Since millions of people have voted without committing any crimes why do you wish to blame and punish those many millions of innocent voters for the actions of a select few people?

He isn't. Hallucination. Pivot fallacy.

Armed personnel aren't that effective when it comes to mass shootings.

You don't hear of them as mass shootings because they DIDN'T OCCUR. It was because of armed personnel.

In fact if we go back to your first question and its logical fallacy we can simply rely on the same logical fallacy you started with.

Fallacy fallacies. No fallacy occurred here. Void argument fallacy.

Since an armed guard in the TOPS grocery was unable to stop a mass murder why do you think adding more armed guards will stop mass murders?

More good guys with guns. One of them will probably succeed where the other may have failed. A murderer only needs to be killed once.

Then we can ask, "Isn't your belief that armed guards will stop mass murders the very definition of insanity?"

No.

When was the last time anyone killed 4 people with a baseball bat?

One such incident occurred in 2017. The killer was sentenced in 2021.

I don't think people should be attacked with baseball bats but it would certainly result in a lot less people killed by mass murderers if they could only rely on baseball bats.

Strawman fallacy. Special pleading fallacy.

The funny thing about all those murderers is that they all used a gun that they were able to easily buy. Why do you refuse to admit that this is a common link?

He isn't. He knows it's a common link. His questions are based on that. Pay attention, dude.

A simple preventative measure would be to not let them buy a gun designed to kill people.

Unconstitutional. What gun is not designed to kill people?

But installing doors that can be quickly locked is not simple or cheap.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You are talking about GOVERNMENT BUDGETS here, dude. They have more money than sense. Locks are cheap!

You would be talking billions of dollars and many years.

Argument from randU fallacy. Putting locks on doors in a school does not costs billions of dollars, dude.

Then you would also need to do the same to windows, classroom doors, and walls inside the school.

Yup. And use them.

Somehow I think someone not willing to sacrifice their ability to buy an Ar-15 is going to be willing to sacrifice and pay more in taxes to protect children in schools.

You don't give a damn about children. You want to allow the killing of children. Don't use children as pawns. It is unconstitutional to ban any weapon.

What gives you the right to demand that other people sacrifice their children so you can own an AR-15?

The inherent right of self defense. Owning an AR-15 does not require the sacrifice of children.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't have kids. And are you seriously claiming that there were never any public shootings in America prior to last couple of decades?

Are you seriously claiming that Columbine style shootings occurred since there have been guns??

 

[Into the Night]

The weapon used was not a military weapon.
The "whackos" would still be able to acquire them via other means.

So the "whackos" are the problem (not the guns)??

The military tends to like various pistols as personal weapons, such as the Glock or the Beretta. Some prefer a Walther.
For rifles, they will use many different kinds, including the AK47 (not usually set to automatic mode).

NOTHING in the 2nd amendment prohibits any person from owning and using these guns.

You are also correct. The military does not bother with the AR-15 rifle. They use the AK-47 design, the fully automatic version of that gun. Oh...it's also capable of cycle fire, using 3 rounds per cycle. They are usually issued M-series guns, not AK series guns.

 

[Into the Night]

There certainly weren't anywhere near as many per capita. That crap started around 2000.

The first bad school shooting of this new increased trend started right in the middle of the "Assault Weapon Ban" and they even had pipe bombs.
What was that one? Klebold and Harris..Columbine.

One of them wore commie insignia, too.

"Had a red medallion on his left boot bearing a sickle and hammer. "

https://acolumbinesite.com/weapon.php

So banning ARs does nothing to stop things like that.

The conveniently forget that these shootings all occur in a so-called Gun Free Zone.

 

[Into the Night]

Guns don't load themselves and pull their own triggers.

Heh. Not even a killer drone does that!

 

[Into the Night]

I know, buddy. The think is, that asshole with his 400 rounds and high-capacity magazines didn't really need a M16, did he? No. We need to get those things off the street my friend. I'm sorry.

Do you know how much 400 rounds for an M16 weighs?

Ignoring and discarding the Constitution isn't going to help you.

 

[LurchAddams]

Into the Night. What is your damage? If you're replying to me for others to see go ahead.. I promise I will never read your racist bs again, bitch.

 

[Into the Night]

I'll just address question 5.

Thank you. At least you tried an actual question instead of evading.

The elected legislature of the people has the right to impose restriction of dangerous or anti-social behavior that is not protected by the Constitution.
Firearms ownership is one of those protected rights, however.

The issue is whether the 2nd Amendment protects private ownership of all or any weapons.

It does.

If some weapons are not allowed to the general public--lets use nuclear bombs, for example, then the precedent is set.

Nothing in the Constitution gives the States or the federal government authority to ban any weapon. Not even a thermonuclear bomb. You cannot change the Constitution by using 'precedence'.

The liberals who oppose all private ownership of firearms are not quite as pathetically stupid as you conservatives,

You are right. They are MUCH stupider.
Even banning any weapon is MUCH stupider.

Conservatives have it right. Nothing in the 2nd amendment specified any type of weapon as an exception that the government can infringe upon.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm not sure where you're going with this so I'll just repeat. You can hunt. I know what a hunting rifle is. You can keep those, pal. And if you have sidearms, you can keep those too as long as they are not auto or semi-automatic.

If I felt unsafe I would buy a sidearm and would have no trouble open-carrying. I just have never needed one.

We're getting those other guns, pal.

Unconstitutional. You are not getting any guns. You will very quickly end up on the wrong end of one.

 

[Into the Night]

We are taking your guns. Given the way you post, it's obvious you can't be trusted with yours. Would you please give them to Matt Dillon? At least he knows about gun safety. You can barely make it out of your house without a bike helmet, punchy.

Try it. See what happens.

 

[Into the Night]

Banning weapons worked in other developed nations.

Never did.

 

[Into the Night]

And it shall work here. We need to purge the evil Repukes first. They pretend to treasure babies and then through their evil policies they kill our babies, like they did in Uvalde last week.

Try it. See what happens. It is YOU that is using babies as pawns. It is YOU that wants to allow the killing of babies. Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

But it will. We have to. Matt, kids are looking at their classroom doors, wondering when the next maniac with an AR is going to walk in. C'mon man. You're a nice guy. Help us. Just the automatics with high capacity mags. No civilian needs those.

Unconstitutional.