Gun+ammo sales WAY up.

[UberNeuman]

Well shit, you're the one who can't make a valid argument.

Da, is bad argment, Komrade. is no good. lol.

 

[Thunder 57]

Da, is bad argment, Komrade. is no good. lol.

Yup, guess I'm a Russian agent...

 

[UberNeuman]

Yup, guess I'm a Russian agent...

I'd hope a Russian agent was more intelligent.

 

[UberNeuman]

I'd hope a Russian agent was more intelligent.

and time has proven me wrong. lol.

 

[Thunder 57]

Again going after me than my message. I'm done with you for now. You really make shit arguments BTW. Like I said earlier, you do you, I'll do me. Glad you aren't running this country. I'd take Trump over you and that's saying a lot.

 

[Paladin3]

Yup, guess I'm a Russian agent...

I have an extremely unique surname. If you search it on google you will only find my family and the families of my two brothers. It took me a long time to find the origin of the name, but it seems it is likely to be Ukrainian, which is Russian-lite or so I'm told.

Maybe I'm a Ukrainian agent?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

It doesn't matter, sweat pea. Shoot all you want - word will get around that there's something worth getting. And it won't stop. Until the ammo runs out.

Food, water and medications will run out far sooner. I'm not willing to sacrifice my wife, children and grandchildren to get a little extra safety, even if you are.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I have an extremely unique surname. If you search it on google you will only find my family and the families of my two brothers. It took me a long time to find the origin of the name, but it seems it is likely to be Ukrainian, which is Russian-lite or so I'm told.

Maybe I'm a Ukrainian agent?

Another canned response by those here in ATP&N. If you do anything they don't approve of and like, you must be a Russian asset or in your case a Ukrainian asset, but not one from Burisma holdings.

 

[UberNeuman]

Food, water and medications will run out far sooner. I'm not willing to sacrifice my wife, children and grandchildren to get a little extra safety, even if you are.

oy, ya er at? firein sounds them is. wait 'em out. draw 'em out. AND IN WE'S GOES. maybe not today or this week, or those fornites bewteen.... but soon is's we comes................

 

[imported_tajmahal]

oy, ya er at? firein sounds them is. wait 'em out. draw 'em out. AND IN WE'S GOES. maybe not today or this week, or those fornites bewteen.... but soon is's we comes................

They'll probably still be tupping the women and children and molesting the dogs of people that didn't resist.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Exactly which guns would that be? Because way over 99.9% of the dreaded AR-15s in civilian hands are used legally and safely. According to the FBI, between 2007 and 2017, all rifles (not just the dreaded AR-15) accounted for between 2-4% of all homicides. So, on a list of which tools murders are using to practice their craft, rifles are barely a blip, and assault rifles are only a small fraction of that blip.

The AR-15 is the most popular single rifle platform in America. It is used by lawful gun owners for lawful hunting, sport and target shooting purposes, and is a damn good tool for protecting your home and family with, and only misused in very rare instances. Lawful semi-auto rifle owners should not be turned into criminals because of the actions of a few criminal/evil/sick individuals. Just like banning motorcycle would be an inappropriate response to someone escaping from the scene of a crime on one. Or trying to ban automobiles to stop drunk driving.

And even if we agreed that a civilian can only own what's on your list, how would we actually force criminals and murders to obey that restriction? The reality is we can't, so such a ban would only serve to disarm the lawful.

I think all guns outside of the 3 you are allotted are banned. A deer rifle, a shotgun and a handgun. And no I don't believe in an eventual disarming of civilians. I believe in people's right to defend themselves. I just don't see why they need an instrument of war.
It only takes a few dipshits to ruin it for everyone. And guess what? Those dipshits have ruined it.
And lastly if only criminals are the ones left with assault rifles then they should be easy to spot. Because in this scenario getting caught with one is a minimum 7 year sentence in prison. I bet you don't see many of them then.

 

[Paladin3]

I think all guns outside of the 3 you are allotted are banned. A deer rifle, a shotgun and a handgun. And no I don't believe in an eventual disarming of civilians. I believe in people's right to defend themselves. I just don't see why they need an instrument of war.
It only takes a few dipshits to ruin it for everyone. And guess what? Those dipshits have ruined it.
And lastly if only criminals are the ones left with assault rifles then they should be easy to spot. Because in this scenario getting caught with one is a minimum 7 year sentence in prison. I bet you don't see many of them then.

Well, all you need are sufficient votes and political will to overturn the 2A and you are all set to implement your plan.

Or, how about this... similar to the 1993 assault weapons ban that failed, if your ban hasn't reduced gun violence appreciably in 10 years we allow it to expire? And in exchange for agreeing to your experiment, the legal gun owners of America get constitutional concealed carry nation wide? And also after your ban fails there can be no more proposed bans, limits, registration, ammo limits, outrageous fees, burdensome licencing requirements, or any other attacks on 2A rights going forward?

I'd even throw in universal background checks on ALL gun sales. But once we've passed that background check we get nationwide constitutional carry in return, and you can't come after legal gun owner's guns again. Ever. Almost as if our constitution stated "...the rights of the people, to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed." (Wait, it kinda does, hmmm.)

Sound like a fair compromise? Do you have enough faith in your ban stopping gun violence to agree?

 

[Veliko]

The 2A doesn't give you the right to own a gun, so this paranoid anger about gun owners being attacked is a nonsense.

And a background check is useless the moment it is completed. Circumstances change; everyone is a law abiding citizen, up until the first time they aren't.

 

[Paladin3]

The 2A doesn't give you the right to own a gun, so this paranoid anger about gun owners being attacked is a nonsense.

And a background check is useless the moment it is completed. Circumstances change; everyone is a law abiding citizen, up until the first time they aren't.

You are correct, the 2A does not give you the right to own a gun. It assumes we already have that right and prohibits the government from infringing upon it. But for years, gun owners and society at large have agreed some reasonable restrictions are acceptable. We're just at the point where restrictions are being proposed that won't accomplish their stated goal of reducing illegal gun violence, and will only serve to disarm lawful gun owners. That is unacceptable.

And, of course, every free person has the ability to commit a crime. Laws are only obeyed by folks who either morally agree it's the right thing to do, or who are afraid they will be caught and punished for it. Most folks fall into the category of morally agreeing it's the right thing to do. Most folks choose to be lawful and basically good, but, yes, they could commit a crime if they chose to do so.

That doesn't give you or anyone else the right to treat them like a criminal or in any way restrict their constitutional and human rights unless they've actually committed a crime and been found guilty in a court of law. You know, due process and innocent until proven guilty and all that. It's the cornerstone concept that allows for a relatively free society.

And we're not paranoid, we're just saying no to further restriction to our natural and Constitutional rights since it won't do anything to solve the problem.

 

[JSt0rm]

You are correct, the 2A does not give you the right to own a gun. It assumes we already have that right and prohibits the government from infringing upon it. But for years, gun owners and society at large have agreed some reasonable restrictions are acceptable. We're just at the point where restrictions are being proposed that won't accomplish their stated goal of reducing illegal gun violence, and will only serve to disarm lawful gun owners. That is unacceptable.

And, of course, every free person has the ability to commit a crime. Laws are only obeyed by folks who either morally agree it's the right thing to do, or who are afraid they will be caught and punished for it. Most folks fall into the category of morally agreeing it's the right thing to do. Most folks choose to be lawful and basically good, but, yes, they could commit a crime if they chose to do so.

That doesn't give you or anyone else the right to treat them like a criminal or in any way restrict their constitutional and human rights unless they've actually committed a crime and been found guilty in a court of law. You know, due process and innocent until proven guilty and all that. It's the cornerstone concept that allows for a relatively free society.

And we're not paranoid, we're just saying no to further restriction to our natural and Constitutional rights since it won't do anything to solve the problem.

you have no natural right to a gun.

 

[Paladin3]

you have no natural right to a gun.

There we go folks, JSt0rm has ruled and the debate is settled.

 

[JSt0rm]

There we go folks, JSt0rm has ruled and the debate is settled.

The idea first came up in ancient times but was discussed most famously by English philosopher John Locke in the sixteen hundreds. Locke said that the most important natural rights are "Life, Liberty, and Property". In the United States Declaration of Independence, the natural rights mentioned are "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". The idea was also found in the Declaration of the Rights of Man. It is viewed by Locke, Jefferson, and others that the purpose of government is to protect peoples' natural rights through a social contract (an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits). There have been many times in history that natural rights have been breached by both governments and singular people.


It says nothing about guns. If you are trying to interpret it so that you add guns to the list thats on you. Its not natural law

 

[Paladin3]

The idea first came up in ancient times but was discussed most famously by English philosopher John Locke in the sixteen hundreds. Locke said that the most important natural rights are "Life, Liberty, and Property". In the United States Declaration of Independence, the natural rights mentioned are "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". The idea was also found in the Declaration of the Rights of Man. It is viewed by Locke, Jefferson, and others that the purpose of government is to protect peoples' natural rights through a social contract (an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits). There have been many times in history that natural rights have been breached by both governments and singular people.


It says nothing about guns. If you are trying to interpret it so that you add guns to the list thats on you. Its not natural law

How do you protect your right to "Life, Liberty and Property" if someone seeks to deprive you of any of them? There are no such things as rights if you don't have the ability to enforce those rights. That is reality. If we lived in a world where everyone played nice and respected their fellow human being's rights then we'd have no need for guns, locks on our doors or any laws at all really. But in the words of the ever-eloquent Ice-T, "Shit ain't like that!"

 

[shortylickens]

I just realized this thread was started because Americans are panicking and buying up guns thinking they will need them for the End Of Days, but it rapidly degraded into a very standard discussion of gun rights and crime stats and we've already had that discussion MANY times here, with no resolution.

 

[hal2kilo]

I just realized this thread was started because Americans are panicking and buying up guns thinking they will need them for the End Of Days, but it rapidly degraded into a very standard discussion of gun rights and crime stats and we've already had that discussion MANY times here, with no resolution.

They always do.

 

[JSt0rm]

How do you protect your right to "Life, Liberty and Property" if someone seeks to deprive you of any of them? There are no such things as rights if you don't have the ability to enforce those rights. That is reality. If we lived in a world where everyone played nice and respected their fellow human being's rights then we'd have no need for guns, locks on or doors or any laws at all really. But in the words of the ever-eloquent Ice-T, "Shit ain't like that!"

How you protect your rights is by voting and being educated. Just because you think you need to madmax your way through life doesnt mean that you have a natural right to a gun.

 

[Paladin3]

How you protect your rights is by voting and being educated. Just because you think you need to madmax your way through life doesnt mean that you have a natural right to a gun.

The only reason you have the ability to vote and get an education is because those rights were fought for and paid for in blood by an armed citizenry with guns. Hopefully, that will never be necessary again, and our government, military and law enforcement will continue to support our constitution and democratic republic. But you can understand if we think disarming the law abiding citizenry might be a bad decision should the worst ever come to pass. And, since it won't even solve the problem of illegal gun violence, is a terrible idea.

To bring this conversation somewhat back on topic, I find it funny that while living in peaceful times so many are willing to give up their gun rights. I believe this is out of a naive desire to ignore that the ability to use force is exactly what secures our freedoms. It's much more comforting to think that all disputes can be settled with debate, passing laws and elections. But when we have a crisis of any kind, suddenly guns are in demand. And not just from current gun owners, but by those who in the past would never have thought of owning one.

I visited my local outdoors retailer three days ago and all the sales folks at the gun counter were busy explaining the basic function of a firearm to new owners looking to buy their first gun. And sales were brisk.

 

[zinfamous]

It's why the authoritarian assholes hate us.

I knew the GOP hates us! Thanks for the confirmation.

 

[BUTCH1]

How do you protect your right to "Life, Liberty and Property" if someone seeks to deprive you of any of them? There are no such things as rights if you don't have the ability to enforce those rights. That is reality. If we lived in a world where everyone played nice and respected their fellow human being's rights then we'd have no need for guns, locks on or doors or any laws at all really. But in the words of the ever-eloquent Ice-T, "Shit ain't like that!"

And I still support the 2nd amendment, but there HAVE to be limitations going forward, assault-style weapons need to be totally banned and background check loopholes closed. Remember that when the constitution was penned state of he art firearms were muzzle-loading single shot weapons, a well trained person could expect to fire 3 rounds per minute. Even if someone went berserk he/she could be bum rushed during the arduous process of reloading.

 

[JSt0rm]

And I still support the 2nd amendment, but there HAVE to be limitations going forward, assault-style weapons need to be totally banned and background check loopholes closed. Remember that when the constitution was penned state of he art firearms were muzzle-loading single shot weapons, a well trained person could expect to fire 3 rounds per minute. Even if someone went berserk he/she could be bum rushed during the arduous process of reloading.

paladin doesnt care if people die as long as he gets to keep his fetish going.