What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[Rockpile233]

3 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

First, they don't hold the market on arguing slippery slope. Talk to far-left person about banning abortions after 20 weeks and watch where the conversation goes. 

 

 

Second, until gun grabbers make a coherent, consistent case, they will never be seen as anything but a political nuisance trying to raise money. It's said often, and SHOULD be said often: if gun grabbers want to make a case for more gun control, they should set up shop in Chicago, and every Monday morning they should hold a press conference showing the faces of the 17 people shot that weekend by gangbangers earning stripes. Tweet out the names of the victims, and what their dreams were. Gather the victims' families together on a CNN town hall and talk about what happened.

 

But they don't. And they won't. Because everything they want for more gun control already takes place in Chicago, and they'd have to point out how their argument is faulty.

 

 

 

 

Use all the confrontational language you want, but it adds little.

 

I am not a “gun grabber”, nor do I believe the majority of people are and I don’t know why you brought up Chicago. You’re not going to solve violent crimes by banning guns, but maybe you stop an emotional teenager from shooting up a school if you make purchase age 21.

 

How is advocating for age 21 grabbing guns?

[3rdnlng]

25 minutes ago, Justice said:

The majority of drunk drivers don’t get an a car accident. Legalize drunk driving! What about all those responsible drunk drivers!!!

 

lol. JK. I figured I’d continue on with poor comparisons. 

So did we.

[Azalin]

5 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

were you homeschooled and still wear an ironed and startched white shirt-sleeve dress shirt?

 

 

 

i give you perfect freedom to live out your religious beliefs but they are not a part of the deliberations of the public square, hate to break this to you....

 

 

 

Stop making this a religious issue, and kindly stop making ridiculous presumptions about me. I am not talking about religion. I am not talking about my religious beliefs. I am not talking about (and care absolutely nothing for) "deliberations of the public %$#$ing square". I am talking about the constitution, it's guarantees, and exactly why they can not be infringed upon.

[oldmanfan]

21 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Oh, man. Where to start.

 

You argue above that if we limit the number of bullets a gun can shoot,  that would have kept the Florida shooting from happening because it's simple math.

 

Did you know CA has a limit on the number of bullets you can load into a gun?

 

Did you know that number is 10?

 

Did that stop San Bernardino?

 

Logic so simple, a second grader can do it.

 

The reason the people who want to take away guns lose this argument so often is because they try to make it from an emotional appeal, and forego all possible logic.

Yes it is simple math.  Let's say you are on a basketball court and you want to make 17 baskets.  do you have a better chance of making them if you take 400 shots or 17?  simple math.

 

San Bernadino happened because those people had assault weapons with high capacity magazines.  And they violated the law.  Should we just abandon laws because you break them?

 

I presume you are a gun rights advocate.  I am too.  You have the right to bear arms.  It doesn't mean you have the right to bear any arm you want, and reasonable people should be able to conclude that a weapon that can shoot hundreds of rounds in a short time period doesn't need to be on the street.  And if a criminal gets them anyway, like the San Bernadino?  If they had lived, I would advocate for mandatory death penalities for anyone using such a weapon in a crime.

[thebug]

3 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

Stop making this a religious issue, and kindly stop making ridiculous presumptions about me. I am not talking about religion. I am not talking about my religious beliefs. I am not talking about (and care absolutely nothing for) "deliberations of the public %$#$ing square". I am talking about the constitution, it's guarantees, and exactly why they can not be infringed upon.

God wrote the constitution! 

[row_33]

8 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Yes it is simple math.  Let's say you are on a basketball court and you want to make 17 baskets.  do you have a better chance of making them if you take 400 shots or 17?  simple math.

 

San Bernadino happened because those people had assault weapons with high capacity magazines.  And they violated the law.  Should we just abandon laws because you break them?

 

I presume you are a gun rights advocate.  I am too.  You have the right to bear arms.  It doesn't mean you have the right to bear any arm you want, and reasonable people should be able to conclude that a weapon that can shoot hundreds of rounds in a short time period doesn't need to be on the street.  And if a criminal gets them anyway, like the San Bernadino?  If they had lived, I would advocate for mandatory death penalities for anyone using such a weapon in a crime.

 

 

oldman, kill rates per second went out of style when Westmoreland was discredited completely

 

i'll type this in 10,000 times till it sinks in...

[oldmanfan]

14 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

First, they don't hold the market on arguing slippery slope. Talk to far-left person about banning abortions after 20 weeks and watch where the conversation goes. 

 

 

Second, until gun grabbers make a coherent, consistent case, they will never be seen as anything but a political nuisance trying to raise money. It's said often, and SHOULD be said often: if gun grabbers want to make a case for more gun control, they should set up shop in Chicago, and every Monday morning they should hold a press conference showing the faces of the 17 people shot that weekend by gangbangers earning stripes. Tweet out the names of the victims, and what their dreams were. Gather the victims' families together on a CNN town hall and talk about what happened.

 

But they don't. And they won't. Because everything they want for more gun control already takes place in Chicago, and they'd have to point out how their argument is faulty.

 

 

 

 

It is not guns per se, it is the type of gun.  The violence in Chicago generally does not result in the death of tens to dozens of people at a time.  For the Chicago thing they need a ton more police there, and to crack down hard on drugs and thugs there.

[row_33]

12 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

Stop making this a religious issue, and kindly stop making ridiculous presumptions about me. I am not talking about religion. I am not talking about my religious beliefs. I am not talking about (and care absolutely nothing for) "deliberations of the public %$#$ing square". I am talking about the constitution, it's guarantees, and exactly why they can not be infringed upon.

 

you bring up God and Creator and say it isn't a religious issue?

 

 

only in America...

[Justice]

5 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

I really dig the way you think. We don't know why there is so much violence in Chicago, but let's legalize drugs and see what happens!

I’m all for legalizing drugs anyways. It’s a fruitless and pathetic “war” that will never end and never stop. Much like guns. Like you guys always say, “if a criminal wanted to get his hands on a gun he’d get it no matter if they were legal or not”. Same thing with drugs. Difference is drugs mainly hurts the user. Guns hurt others. 

[oldmanfan]

Just now, row_33 said:

 

 

oldman, kill rates per second went out of style when Westmoreland was discredited completely

 

i'll type this in 10,000 times till it sinks in...

row, if you want to make 17 baskets, do you have a better chance of you take 400 shots or 17?  Simple question.  Simple answer.

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, thebug said:

God wrote the constitution! 

 

That's not what he said. That's not what anyone believes. 

 

You would think a liberal would understand the history of where the foundation of our country originated from, how liberal philosophy through the enlightenment influenced the creation of what is, without question, one of humanity's greatest accomplishments. 

 

But you're emotional now, so you want to piss all over it in the name of "progressive liberalism" fascism. 

[boyst]

14 minutes ago, Justice said:

Speaking of Chicago, does anybody know why there’s so much violence there? If I had to guess I’d say it’s drug related. Maybe they should just legalize drugs there and see what happens. 

If it was only that easy, though.

 

Look at prohibition.  It was revoked and they moved to drugs. 

 

Cigarettes are legal and so are booze and gangs/mafia still make tons there.

 

Not to mention theft is also becoming popular again. Mobile phones, copper, vehicles, all of those items are increasing in theft. 

[row_33]

9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

That's not what he said. That's not what anyone believes. 

 

You would think a liberal would understand the history of where the foundation of our country originated from, how liberal philosophy through the enlightenment influenced the creation of what is, without question, one of humanity's greatest accomplishments. 

 

But you're emotional now, so you want to piss all over it in the name of "progressive liberalism" fascism. 

 

good post, the enlightenment and some half-baked insertions of religion helped found it all, thankfully.

 

 

[Justice]

1 minute ago, Boyst62 said:

If it was only that easy, though.

 

Look at prohibition.  It was revoked and they moved to drugs. 

 

Cigarettes are legal and so are booze and gangs/mafia still make tons there.

 

Not to mention theft is also becoming popular again. Mobile phones, copper, vehicles, all of those items are increasing in theft. 

Our prisons are littered with drug offenders more so than anything else. 

[LeviF]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

row, if you want to make 17 baskets, do you have a better chance of you take 400 shots or 17?  Simple question.  Simple answer.

 

 

 

That's not the point.  And this is what you gun-grabbers don't get.

 

If I come and take some part of something that rightfully belongs to you, that's wrong.  Even if I come for all of it, and you say no, then I say "let's compromise, I'll only take half" with the full force of the law behind me then it's still wrong.

 

You're the person taking in the above illustration.  You're in the wrong.  You're the one calling something a compromise when only one party gets anything and then have the gall to call me "absurd."

 

!@#$ right off.

[thebug]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

That's not what he said. That's not what anyone believes. 

 

You would think a liberal would understand the history of where the foundation of our country originated from, how liberal philosophy through the enlightenment influenced the creation of what is, without question, one of humanity's greatest accomplishments. 

 

But you're emotional now, so you want to piss all over it in the name of "progressive liberalism" fascism. 

I’m not emotional at all, but sound like a few here are. God? God? Now you’re talking fake news!! 

[Azalin]

3 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

you bring up God and Creator and say it isn't a religious issue?

 

 

only in America...

 

I corrected you when you referred to the 2nd amendment as "what the people want". If you don't understand the source of our constitutionally guaranteed liberties, then fine. If you want to continue to characterize what I'm saying as having anything to do with religion, you do so at the continued promotion of your own ignorance.

 

 

Laugh all you want.

 

Then go read a book.

[row_33]

9 minutes ago, Justice said:

Our prisons are littered with drug offenders more so than anything else. 

 

i thought 60% are there awaiting trial and the vast majority of the rest have sentences less than a year to serve

 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, thebug said:

I’m not emotional at all, but sound like a few here are. God? God? Now you’re talking fake news!! 

 

You believe it's fake news point out that the Bill of rights was the end result of centuries of liberal thought and enlightenment? 

 

[row_33]

8 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You believe it's fake news point out that the Bill of rights was the end result of centuries of liberal thought and enlightenment? 

 

 

there's no way bug has read the Federalist Papers or other US founding documents

 

but why would one bother when you can just type in what one feels and let her ride, even the news media does this

 

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...............