Everyone should watch Mark Kelly speak

[Hayabusa Rider]

To answer I would have to know what you mean by thinking. I have become rather suspicious that numerous people who use that term have no actual idea.

My old Gaffer used to say tongue in cheek... "Don't confuse me with facts, my minds already made up."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yet, somehow, assault rifles designed for volume of fire across a battlefront don't fit the same category, according to conservatives. Nor do weapons of civilian crime and terror such as the easily concealable high-capacity pistol.

You know if it weren't for the fact that those like Biden are conflating issues saying things like "people shouldn't have automatic weapons" when only a few do and how many who have them use them to murder? As far as "easily concealable high-capacity pistol" I note that the number arbitrarily picked isn't so arbitrary if one's agenda is to make a huge number of legal weapons illegal. Many would now be criminals for owning a .22.

With that as a frame of reference the distrust of many is reasonable, ignorance and emotion being the preferred mode of people like Biden.

 

[LunarRay]

We citizens of this here USA are a funny lot. We demand those Rights that suit our desires and/or needs but are ready at a moments notice to deny those Rights that others desire or need.

Some even balk at actions designed to thwart terrorist acts against us. After 9/11 we demanded freedom from the oppressive Patriot Act type stuff and were willing to accept another visit from our 'Friends'.

It seems the only real answer to this gun question is to recognize that we are a land of Freedoms... A land of Rights... AND, we're willing to sustain the downside of that recognition.... Well, I suppose we do seek to Deny some Rights to some folks but that is changing, Thank Goodness.

WE have the explicit Right to own and bear arms and we can read all about what the words contained in the 2nd were intended to convey as a Right. I don't agree with Scalia that restrictions on arms type is inferred in the 2nd other than say a canon... you had to be able to bear the arm...

I think we probably had a similar percentage of folks who'd use weapons to force their will on other folks as we do today. It does not seem that there was any consideration given to the illegal use of arms when crafting the 2nd... It seems it was thought that would be the price of freedom.

So Moonster, we need not consider either the banning of certain arms nor certain people or all arms or all people... We simply need to agree that all things have a price to be paid .... even freedom.

OR.... Amend the Constitution to reflect some other factors relative to today and good luck with that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We citizens of this here USA are a funny lot. We demand those Rights that suit our desires and/or needs but are ready at a moments notice to deny those Rights that others desire or need.

Some even balk at actions designed to thwart terrorist acts against us. After 9/11 we demanded freedom from the oppressive Patriot Act type stuff and were willing to accept another visit from our 'Friends'.

It seems the only real answer to this gun question is to recognize that we are a land of Freedoms... A land of Rights... AND, we're willing to sustain the downside of that recognition.... Well, I suppose we do seek to Deny some Rights to some folks but that is changing, Thank Goodness.

WE have the explicit Right to own and bear arms and we can read all about what the words contained in the 2nd were intended to convey as a Right. I don't agree with Scalia that restrictions on arms type is inferred in the 2nd other than say a canon... you had to be able to bear the arm...

I think we probably had a similar percentage of folks who'd use weapons to force their will on other folks as we do today. It does not seem that there was any consideration given to the illegal use of arms when crafting the 2nd... It seems it was thought that would be the price of freedom.

So Moonster, we need not consider either the banning of certain arms nor certain people or all arms or all people... We simply need to agree that all things have a price to be paid .... even freedom.

OR.... Amend the Constitution to reflect some other factors relative to today and good luck with that.

Thats a bit quaint. This is what you are to do.

 

[LunarRay]

Thats a bit quaint. This is what you are to do.

It seems there are far, far more synonyms for 'obey' than antonyms. It seems, therefore, there are many ways to obey...

Of course I'd register my sling shot and in so doing wonder why I thought I could slay that big Philistine anyhow.
Of course I'd vote and wonder how it matters in my gerrymandered district.
Of course I'd walk my daughter down the isle and wonder if it matters that she can't get her wife pregnant....

Nothing really matters.... If it did we'd figure out how to reverse Climate Cooling... or why a nuclear bomb is so much different than a Mother of all Bombs...

 

[mect]

Guns don't kill, people kill with guns. This issue could be solved by getting rid of guns or people. I just don't know which makes the most sense.

If we don't get rid of people and take away folk's guns, they will probably just kill each other with nerf balls, so well have to move on to ban them too.

So getting rid of people, so far, seems the best answer.

But I guess we could say there are different kinds of people, folk who kill others with guns and those who do not.

But I bet it's damn hard to X-ray for that so maybe all people have to go, or we're going to have to find some sort of half measures as a compromise. Maybe we should try to limit how many people you can kill per minute with a gun and do some stuff in society to make folk less sick or those who are easier to identify and get some help. Geez, I don't know? Maybe some sensible measures could be adopted because I'm really against a ban on people. Some of them are quite interesting.

If we ban guns (and over time destroy all guns from existence), we still only rid the world of gun violence. If we ban people (and over time destroy all people from existence), we rid the world of all human violence. If we ban all forms of life, we can completely eliminate violence from the face of the earth. I think we have the nukes to pull it off. Now we are thinking like corporate lawyers. Minimize liability.

 

[Cerb]

Did you even think before writing this?

Much more than you, likely. Did you read it? It was one of the best Godwins I've seen on the forum, without actually invoking Godwin's Law.

Honestly, I thought it was a fairly good speech, and not at all in concert with your previous posts. A little on the emotional pleading side, but damn, I think he can be allowed to slide on that a little, right now, you know?