Gun Control Measures

[SlowSpyder]

What right is being taken away? The right to own which firearm you want to or the right to bear arms which is what the Constitution says. It doesn't specify what arms unless I'm mistaken.

Another poster compared the 737 MAX fix (a small number of causalities overall, but magnified in the public eye due to the drama of it all) to doing something to limit the 2A to help lower the number of causalities from mass shootings (also a small number of causalities overall, but magnified in the public eye due to the drama of it all). This comparison is stupid because to fix the 737 MAX no one lost any part of their constitutional rights. Further limiting the 2A is doing exactly that, there are as many as 100 million gun owners in this country. The 2A says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. We already lost automatic weapons, an infringement technically given the plain wording of the 2A. Now the anti-2A'ers want the semi auto weapons. This is the slippery slope in action, happening right before us. When this does nothing to stop deaths, as it is a do-nothing-feel-good move, then it'll be revolvers and repeating arms in general next.

 

[glenn1]

It's been solidly established that slow, glenn and others are ok with the slaughter of children, so they can have their guns without any restrictions whatsoever. Totally cool with that.

I didn’t realize this thread wasn’t intended to discuss potential areas of agreement and compromise, but rather to simply indulge power fantasy statements like “let’s ban all semi-automatic weapons and those who disagree must want to slaughter children.” Carry on.

 

[soundforbjt]

I didn’t realize this thread wasn’t intended to discuss potential areas of agreement and compromise, but rather to simply indulge power fantasy statements like “let’s ban all semi-automatic weapons and those who disagree must want to slaughter children.” Carry on.

You have a better way to limit a person's ability to kill/injure mass amounts of people with a gun in less than a minute without banning semi autos, I want to hear it.

 

[glenn1]

You have a better way to limit a person's ability to kill/injure mass amounts of people with a gun in less than a minute without banning semi autos, I want to hear it.

We’ve already had this discussion. You don’t get to put the onus on the person with the rights. That’s how we end up with things like Japanese interment camps and such, because American citizens of Japanese descent couldn’t “prove” to satisfaction they weren’t an imminent threat to others.

 

[soundforbjt]

We’ve already had this discussion. You don’t get to put the onus on the person with the rights. That’s how we end up with things like Japanese interment camps and such, because American citizens of Japanese descent couldn’t “prove” to satisfaction they weren’t an imminent threat to others.

What right do you have in the constitution that guarantees you the right to own a semi auto? You have the right to bear arms, no one is taking that right away from you.

 

[glenn1]

What right do you have in the constitution that guarantees you the right to own a semi auto? You have the right to bear arms, no one is taking that right away from you.

What right do you have in the constitution to post on an electronic forum? Your freedom of speech could just as easily be exercised by a town crier in the city square, no one is taking that right away from you.

 

[Veliko]

You have people on ATPN talking about criminalizing all semi automatic guns and arresting those who don’t turn them in or actually use them to defend themselves. That seems like a pretty drastic gun control strategy that would hardly go over without resistance.

You're not making any sense here.

How would criminalising semi automatic guns make things worse, in the same way that Trump has made the immigration situation worse?

 

[Veliko]

What right do you have in the constitution to post on an electronic forum? Your freedom of speech could just as easily be exercised by a town crier in the city square, no one is taking that right away from you.

That's not even remotely comparable.

Why won't you answer the question?

 

[soundforbjt]

You're not making any sense here.

Of course he makes no sense, he has no other ideas that would effectively limit a shooters ability to kill or injure massive amounts of people in less than a minute, but damn it to hell, he sure doesn't want that ability taken away from anyone.

 

[glenn1]

Of course he makes no sense, he has no other ideas that would effectively limit a shooters ability to kill or injure massive amounts of people in less than a minute, but damn it to hell, he sure doesn't want that ability taken away from anyone.

Yeah that’s kind of the point of the Second Amendment. Inherently it means that people may be killed or injured by the firearms that the right enables. Just like the right to speech means that you could use it to say horribly misogynistic or racist things.

 

[Veliko]

Yeah that’s kind of the point of the Second Amendment. Inherently it means that people may be killed or injured by the firearms that the right enables. Just like the right to speech means that you could use it to say horribly misogynistic or racist things.

You are trying to equate getting killed with not getting killed.

You're not a very bright person.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Why do you have a war against truth in your head?

Says a troll that shits on truth every chance he gets.

Lordy.

 

[Bird222]

You are trying to equate getting killed with not getting killed.

You're not a very bright person.

You don't seem to get that they are both rights whether you like one of them or not. In addition, that is kinda the point of the constitution is to protect what may be unpopular.

 

[soundforbjt]

We get it...gun owners won't sacrifice a certain type of guns for the sake of humanity, much better to do nothing at all and blame it on something else while claiming it violates their right to bear arms.

 

[glenn1]

We get it...gun owners won't sacrifice a certain type of guns for the sake of humanity, much better to do nothing at all and blame it on something else while claiming it violates their right to bear arms.

Took long enough for you to “get it.”

 

[Jhhnn]

We get it...gun owners won't sacrifice a certain type of guns for the sake of humanity, much better to do nothing at all and blame it on something else while claiming it violates their right to bear arms.

Massive firepower is the holy grail of the ammosexuals. Can't get enough of it! They treat highly developed weapons of mass destruction as toys. And we indulge them, because freedom.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Massive firepower is the holy grail of the ammosexuals. Can't get enough of it! They treat highly developed weapons of mass destruction as toys. And we indulge them, because freedom.

Gotta love that energy transfer, physics at work. Don't shit yourself.

 

[Jhhnn]

Gotta love that energy transfer, physics at work. Don't shit yourself.

That's a whole different kind of firepower. This what you need to kill a shitpile of people in a hurry, and what we're talking about-

It's like spraying hot spooge, only different.

 

[JEDIYoda]

n/m

 

[JEDIYoda]

Yeah that’s kind of the point of the Second Amendment. Inherently it means that people may be killed or injured by the firearms that the right enables. Just like the right to speech means that you could use it to say horribly misogynistic or racist things.

In other words -- You have a better way to limit a person's ability to kill/injure mass amounts of people with a gun in less than a minute without banning semi autos, I want to hear it.
We get it...gun owners won't sacrifice a certain type of guns for the sake of humanity, much better to do nothing at all and blame it on something else while claiming it violates their right to bear arms. -- ok! I got it!! We won`t even mention the lives and children and families that nhave been hurt...

 

[JEDIYoda]

I qwould be willing to bet you that the 2nd amendment would not have been written as it is; had those who wrote it had the knowledge what kind of weapons would be available in the future.....

 

[Veliko]

You don't seem to get that they are both rights whether you like one of them or not. In addition, that is kinda the point of the constitution is to protect what may be unpopular.

I get it entirely; hence me saying it was a stupid comparison.

And as has been pointed out by numerous people, numerous times... the constitution doesn't give you the right to own guns.

 

[Indus]

Looks like Trump is pushing forward some measures of gun control, and I'm all for this. This is intelligent, logic-based thinking. Expand background checks, great idea. No assault weapons ban as that is a do-nothing feel good bs restriction that will only affect legal gun owners. They tried such a ban not long ago and it made zero difference whatsoever, a stupid idea pushed forward by stupid, ignorant people. But, background checks over time can possibly help and do not affect the rights of legal gun owners.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...o-political-appetite-for-assault-weapons-ban/

Apparently slow is afraid of getting murdered by a random white supremacist

 

[JEDIYoda]

You don't seem to get that they are both rights whether you like one of them or not. In addition, that is kinda the point of the constitution is to protect what may be unpopular.

So let me get this right -- mind you I am using your own words -- You mean the point of the Constitution is to protect the murdering of children????

 

[Bird222]

So let me get this right -- mind you I am using your own words -- You mean the point of the Constitution is to protect the murdering of children????

Uh, no the hell you are not. Nowhere have I said such a thing. You might want to read the thread again.