The God Damned Gun Control Thread

[mrjamwin]

Baiely, how is texting and driving a loss of a Constituitional right or loss of liberty? How are you violated by not being able to do this? Honestly, this is not even in the same ball park of reason.

[WD-40]

Baiely, how is texting and driving a loss of a Constituitional right or loss of liberty? How are you violated by not being able to do this? Honestly, this is not even in the same ball park of reason.

But that's a 'personal right' that he considers more important than a Constitutional Right, despite that fact you can still kill or be killed while armed with a cellphone.

[Outrider]

Baiely, how is texting and driving a loss of a Constituitional right or loss of liberty? How are you violated by not being able to do this? Honestly, this is not even in the same ball park of reason.

Texting and driving was something he used to be able to do legally. Now he can't do it anymore without facing legal troubles. His liberty regarding texting and driving is now gone completely. Stricter gun control measures, on the other hand, will make it harder for everyone to obtain certain high-powered arms, but it merely acts as a filter, not as a repeal of the second amendment. In the end, those that are deemed "worthy" will get these weapons, whereas those that aren't won't. So you're right, this isn't even in the same ball park of reason. And how are you being violated by having to go through these extra steps? It'll potentially filter out the "bad guys," so isn't that a good thing? And if you're a "good guy," and you know it, then you'll eventually get your guns. Are you afraid that you won't be able to defend yourself during the waiting period? Or maybe the government will become "tyrannical" while you are being cleared? Can't you just defend yourself with the smaller arms that won't have restrictions imposed on them for the time being? And even if you do get access to your high-powered arms in time, do you honestly think you'll be able to face the might of the U.S. military-backed "tyrannical" government?

Also, I don't think the Founding Fathers had these types of weapons in mind that you guys fancy so much when they thought of the second amendment. The majority of these weapons had their beginnings during the late 19th/early 20th century, long after the Constitution was amended for the first time. Not only that but the way war is conducted has changed drastically since then. So how do you know these types of arms were intended to be protected by the second amendment? Simply because they are considered arms? And how about for what the future holds as killing becomes more effcient? Should civilians be owning personal arms capable of killing a person instantly by boiling the water out of them using concentrated microwaves? Probably not.

[Bailey]

Baiely, how is texting and driving a loss of a Constituitional right or loss of liberty? How are you violated by not being able to do this? Honestly, this is not even in the same ball park of reason.

I do not believe that anybody has the right to an extended magazine any more than they have the right to text and drive. I do not believe for one moment that an assault rifle or 30 round clip was what the founding fathers intended. You have the right to arm yourself, we should have guns, just not to the insane and dangerous extent that we do.

[Duel of Fates]

Our government has a series of checks and balances to prevent that exact thing.

That Franklin quote is not relevant.

Checks and balances that this administration has circumvented by executive orders?

And the Franklin quote is very relevant. You choosing not to see it as relevant does not bode well for this discussion.

[mrjamwin]

Baiely, how is texting and driving a loss of a Constituitional right or loss of liberty? How are you violated by not being able to do this? Honestly, this is not even in the same ball park of reason.

Texting and driving was something he used to be able to do legally. Now he can't do it anymore without facing legal troubles. His liberty regarding texting and driving is now gone completely. Stricter gun control measures, on the other hand, will make it harder for everyone to obtain certain high-powered arms, but it merely acts as a filter, not as a repeal of the second amendment. In the end, those that are deemed "worthy" will get these weapons, whereas those that aren't won't. So you're right, this isn't even in the same ball park of reason. And how are you being violated by having to go through these extra steps? It'll potentially filter out the "bad guys," so isn't that a good thing? And if you're a "good guy," and you know it, then you'll eventually get your guns. Are you afraid that you won't be able to defend yourself during the waiting period? Or maybe the government will become "tyrannical" while you are being cleared? Can't you just defend yourself with the smaller arms that won't have restrictions imposed on them for the time being? And even if you do get access to your high-powered arms in time, do you honestly think you'll be able to face the might of the U.S. military-backed "tyrannical" government?

Also, I don't think the Founding Fathers had these types of weapons in mind that you guys fancy so much when they thought of the second amendment. The majority of these weapons had their beginnings during the late 19th/early 20th century, long after the Constitution was amended for the first time. Not only that but the way war is conducted has changed drastically since then. So how do you know these types of arms were intended to be protected by the second amendment? Simply because they are considered arms? And how about for what the future holds as killing becomes more effcient? Should civilians be owning personal arms capable of killing a person instantly by boiling the water out of them using concentrated microwaves? Probably not.

I didn't ask you what you thought. If I wanted your opinion I'd come find you in the crap third world country that you live in and beat it out of you. Now go back to your tea and crumpets and let the big boys talk.

[Outrider]

Indoctrinated youth vs. free thinking adults = name calling and insults.

For the record, the only name calling and insults going on around here are between Jam and me, and he was the one that started it.

I didn't ask you what you thought. If I wanted your opinion I'd come find you in the crap third world country that you live in and beat it out of you. Now go back to your tea and crumpets and let the big boys talk.

You call this a free-thinking adult? More like a [m'kay].

[mrjamwin]

Baiely, how is texting and driving a loss of a Constituitional right or loss of liberty? How are you violated by not being able to do this? Honestly, this is not even in the same ball park of reason.

I do not believe that anybody has the right to an extended magazine any more than they have the right to text and drive. I do not believe for one moment that an assault rifle or 30 round clip was what the founding fathers intended. You have the right to arm yourself, we should have guns, just not to the insane and dangerous extent that we do.

Bailey, you are certainly entitled to your personal opinions/beliefs. Yes the founding fathers could not have any way to forsee the advancement of these types of guns. But what they did forsee is that the American person has the right to bear arms and defend themselves against any possible threat. Again, who is committing the crimes with these types of guns and how often is this occurring? I'll tell you this that this country is constantly favoring the minority over the majority. People like James Holmes and the Newtown killer are a minority. Did they get their guns legally? James Holmes did and it is well known that he was having a mental breakdown and people knew it and they were too slow to stop it. It could have been prevented if they acted sooner most likely. The Newtown killer(sorry can't remember is name) also has mental issues which were well documented but his own mother who was the gun enthusist didn't want to acknowledge his condition and the guns he used he stole from her. Again, the people committing the crimes are not obtaining their guns legally and the dangerous extent that you suggest is a exaggeration. More people die in car accidents every year then they do by gun violence.

[mrjamwin]

Awww, look who's crying that it's my fault!! You sound like a baby. Hmm no suprise there. Yes I am a free thinking adult. I'm also a creative thinking adult which means I can constantly come up with these funny and witty replies that you are so incapable of responding too. Again, keep replying my little Pavlov dog.

[Outrider]

Your replies have only demonstrated how much of a child you are. You are neither free thinking nor creative. Everything you have posted has just been a rehash of something someone else has already written.

Did they get their guns legally? James Holmes did and it is well known that he was having a mental breakdown and people knew it and they were too slow to stop it.
...
Again, the people committing the crimes are not obtaining their guns legally and the dangerous extent that you suggest is a exaggeration.

So which is it? This just proves how much of an idiot you are. Now if there were stricter gun control measures in place, the on-the-verge-of-a-mental-break-down James Holmes wouldn't have been able to get ahold of the weapons he used. As for Adam Lanza's case, the fact that his mother was an irresponsible gun owner coupled with Lanza's mental problems was a formula for trouble.