Should the 2nd amendment be repealed?

[ch33zw1z]

I'm proposing exactly what I've said and you disagree with. With great power comes great responsibility. If people want to own killing machines, vetting both mental and physical well being where it should start. Humans are the variable to gun violence.

 

[Paladin3]

I'm proposing exactly what I've said and you disagree with. With great power comes great responsibility. If people want to own killing machines, vetting both mental and physical well being where it should start. Humans are the variable to gun violence.

As it stands, what you are proposing would be very unconstitutional. So, all you have to do is get the laws passed and Constitution changed to impose such. Good luck.

 

[ch33zw1z]

As it stands, what you are proposing would be very unconstitutional. So, all you have to do is get the laws passed and Constitution changed to impose such. Good luck.

So it seems that citizens will continue to pursue physical weapons bans. Which I personally dont the agree with, as I think we should be able to own anything our government can, as that's the spirit of the 2a, defense from the government. As it stands, the weapons we have access to won't cut it.

 

[Paladin3]

So it seems that citizens will continue to pursue physical weapons bans. Which I personally dont the agree with, as I think we should be able to own anything our government can, as that's the spirit of the 2a, defense from the government. As it stands, the weapons we have access to won't cut it.

Now I believe you're just being condescending.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Now you're just being condescending.

Not at all. When it comes to gun violence, we have a choice, blame inanimate objects, or blame humans. Disagree?

Do you disagree with my assessment wrt to firepower owned by our government and firepower own by citizens?

Hehe, gotcha before the edit!

 

[Paladin3]

Not at all. When it comes to gun violence, we have a choice, blame inanimate objects, or blame humans. Disagree?

Do you disagree with my assessment wrt to firepower owned by our government and firepower own by citizens?

Hehe, gotcha before the edit!

Blame humans who use weapons illegally. How about that?

You aren't addressing a single point I've been trying to make about due process or right to privacy. You can't distill this argument down to a few loaded this or that questions.

And I edited my post to add "I believe." Boy, you sure got me!

 

[ch33zw1z]

Blame humans who use weapons illegally. How about that?

You aren't addressing a single point I've been trying to make about due process or right to privacy. You can't distill this argument down to a few loaded this or that questions.

And I edited my post to add "I believe." Boy, you sure got me!

So none of the mass shootings in the last year we're done by people that attained the weapons legally?

Or do you meant it's illegal to use a machine designed to end life to....end life?

I addressed your points. Privacy? Lol......please....the fight over that little amendment was done before you started.

Due process. That's where you and I part. I do that believe a reactive stance is how we should approach the situation.

"Oh, sorry about all those kids, but we can't stop this guy's eight to own guns"

You basically are saying all the death from guns are acceptable losses, which I disagree with whole heartedly

 

[Paladin3]

Do you disagree with my assessment wrt to firepower owned by our government and firepower own by citizens?

Nope, I sure don't, but it's irreverent. We've had almost 250 years of peaceful transition of power via democratic elections. I doubt we will ever have a government, military, law enforcement vs civilians civil war. And if it ever did happen, I believe a huge portion of the military and law enforcement would fight on the civilian side against any government that tried to suspend elections and seize total power.

 

[Paladin3]

So none of the mass shootings in the last year we're done by people that attained the weapons legally?

Or do you meant it's illegal to use a machine designed to end life to....end life?

Yes, it is very illegal to commit murder and it doesn't matter where you got your chosen weapon from. And it's stupid to think nobody will ever use a legal weapon illegally. My point is that you can't violate the 2A rights and due process of every gun owner, every citizen really, to try and catch the tiny fraction who do.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Yes, it is very illegal to commit murder and it doesn't matter where you got your chosen weapon from.

But they still had them, *shrug*, and the deaths still happened...these people obviously weren't mentally sound enough to be granted the ability to own weapons, but hey....let's just pretend like it's ok.

 

[Paladin3]

So none of the mass shootings in the last year we're done by people that attained the weapons legally?

Or do you meant it's illegal to use a machine designed to end life to....end life?

I addressed your points. Privacy? Lol......please....the fight over that little amendment was done before you started.

Due process. That's where you and I part. I do that believe a reactive stance is how we should approach the situation.

"Oh, sorry about all those kids, but we can't stop this guy's eight to own guns"

You basically are saying all the death from guns are acceptable losses, which I disagree with whole heartedly

99.99%+ of civilian owned guns are never used to hurt anyone. You are saying it's worth violating the Constitutional rights of the many to catch the few. You are willing to give up some of your freedoms to obtain a bit more safety.

I disagree, especially because your plan has almost no possibility of working. You have no way to get rid of the 350 million guns already in circulation or stop illegal and homemade guns from flooding the market even if you could. So you want to disarm those of us who would follow the law, those of us who choose to obey a much more important law that makes MURDER ILLEGAL.

 

[Paladin3]

But they still had them, *shrug*, and the deaths still happened...these people obviously weren't mentally sound enough to be granted the ability to own weapons, but hey....let's just pretend like it's ok.

You are an asshole to imply law-abiding gun owners think children dying is okay just because we don't agree with your stupid idea on how to try and prevent it.

There are a litany of rights we could strip from people in the name of "safety" but we live in a country where we've decided not to do it. If you've got the votes to change that then go ahead.

Think of the lives you could save if you got on board with making it illegal to smoke, do drugs, drink, overeat, ride motorcycles, skydive, hike in the woods...all kinds of things we do are dangerous. Still, we punish those who abuse those rights, not the vast majority who do it responsibly.

 

[ch33zw1z]

99.99%+ of civilian owned guns are never used to hurt anyone. You are saying it's worth violating the Constitutional rights of the many to catch the few. You are willing to give up some of your freedoms to obtain a bit more safety.

I disagree, especially because your plan has almost no possibility of working. You have no way to get rid of the 350 million guns already in circulation or stop illegal and homemade guns from flooding the market even if you could. So you want to disarm those of us who would follow the law, those of us who choose to obey a much more important law that makes MURDER ILLEGAL.

Yes, I willingly give up my freedom to own a killing machine with proper mental and physical health screening, because I care about my fellow country-persons.

 

[ch33zw1z]

You are an asshole to imply law-abiding gun owners think children dying is okay just because we don't agree with your stupid idea on how to try and prevent it.

There are a litany of rights we could strip from people in the name of "safety" but we live in a country where we've decided not to do it. If you've got the votes to change that then go ahead.

Think of the lives you could save if you got on board with making it illegal to smoke, do drugs, drink, overeat, ride motorcycles, skydive, hike in the woods...all kinds of things we do are dangerous. Still, we punish those who abuse those rights, not the vast majority who do it responsibly.

Oh, I'm the asshole for calling others out for being placent about deaths? Good one, again....sorry about those feels. Guess that hit home with you.

And now the idea is just plain stupid? Lol...

Anyways, the problem isn't going away anytime soon, so I guess we can see what happens.

I prefer to place the blame on the variable, and hold the variable to a higher standard.

Look at you, all concerned about hiking. Let me know when your gofundme is setup in the fight against hikers.

I'm off to work, be back later.

 

[Paladin3]

Yes, I willingly give up my freedom to own a killing machine with proper mental and physical health screening, because I care about my fellow country-persons.

Well, that's a mighty fine futile gesture. Good luck with that.

 

[Paladin3]

Oh, I'm the asshole for calling others out for being placent about deaths? Good one, again....sorry about those feels. Guess that hit home with you.

And now the idea is just plain stupid? Lol...

Anyways, the problem isn't going away anytime soon, so I guess we can see what happens.

I prefer to place the blame on the variable, and hold the variable to a higher standard.

Look at you, all concerned about hiking. Let me know when your gofundme is setup in the fight against hikers.

I'm off to work, be back later.

You're just parsing words. Type "variable" a few more times, why don't you. You want to make an entire class of people guilty until proven innocent because of the criminal actions of a tiny few. If you have the votes to change the Constitution and current laws to make it possible, more power to you.

 

[ch33zw1z]

You're just parsing words. Type "variable" a few more times, why don't you. You want to make an entire class of people guilty until proven innocent because of the criminal actions of a tiny few. If you have the votes to change the Constitution and current laws to make it possible, more power to you.

Wowsers, if the other thread guilty until proven innocent is totally cool. How very authoritarian and feels of you. On one hand, don't touch your 2a because your not guilty, on the other hand gun people down because they *might* have a weapon and *might* be guilty.

You once coherent argument has digressed into emotion based.

 

[Bird222]

So none of the mass shootings in the last year we're done by people that attained the weapons legally?

Or do you meant it's illegal to use a machine designed to end life to....end life?

I addressed your points. Privacy? Lol......please....the fight over that little amendment was done before you started.

Due process. That's where you and I part. I do that believe a reactive stance is how we should approach the situation.

"Oh, sorry about all those kids, but we can't stop this guy's eight to own guns"

You basically are saying all the death from guns are acceptable losses, which I disagree with whole heartedly

What percentage of death are acceptable losses to you? Is it 0%? Let's face it, practically everything we do it's possible for someone to die from. It's the cost of living a 'free' life. So what's your percentage for deaths from gun crime and in particular AR-15 deaths? Also, if AR's are outlawed and a mass shooting happens with some other gun are you going to want to ban/regulate that one too or are you going to stop and say there is enough gun regulation at this point?

 

[Veliko]

What percentage of death are acceptable losses to you? Is it 0%? Let's face it, practically everything we do it's possible for someone to die from. It's the cost of living a 'free' life. So what's your percentage for deaths from gun crime and in particular AR-15 deaths? Also, if AR's are outlawed and a mass shooting happens with some other gun are you going to want to ban/regulate that one too or are you going to stop and say there is enough gun regulation at this point?

What point are you making here?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

What point are you making here?

He's making the point that if gun owners and the people of this nation capitulate to you and other anti-gun maniacs and allow the outlawing of a firearm such as the AR-15 or the AK-47 you'll just be calling for other bans if/when another shooting occurs.

It's the slippery slope/give anti-gun nutballs an inch theory.

 

[Thebobo]

nutballs.

nutballs?

 

[Veliko]

He's making the point that if gun owners and the people of this nation capitulate to you and other anti-gun maniacs and allow the outlawing of a firearm such as the AR-15 or the AK-47 you'll just be calling for other bans if/when another shooting occurs.

It's the slippery slope/give anti-gun nutballs an inch theory.

Right, so he's arguing a fallacy and not actually making any real coherent point.

 

[soulcougher73]

So it seems that citizens will continue to pursue physical weapons bans. Which I personally dont the agree with, as I think we should be able to own anything our government can, as that's the spirit of the 2a, defense from the government. As it stands, the weapons we have access to won't cut it.

I for one, want some tomahawk missiles and an A-1Abrams Tank. You know...to level the playing field...

 

[Bird222]

Right, so he's arguing a fallacy and not actually making any real coherent point.

I'm asking questions. What fallacy do you think I am arguing?

 

[Muse]

As I said previously, I'm not a huge NRA fan because I don't agree with many of their positions, but I'm about ready to write them a check as they are the main opponent of the anti-gun crowd.

You mean that? They are the gun lobby, the political arm of the gun manufacturers. Those guys view their contributions to the NRA as an investment, money well spent to help insure that they make big profits going forward. If you give them money, you are a part of the problem, not the solution.