The Second Amendment must go

[motsm]

Threads like this are always fun to watch. Hypocrite righties always make an ass of themselves!

Threads like this are fun, and you are making a partisan ass of yourself like everyone else, so thanks for contributing.

 

[OutHouse]

The gun genie is out of the bottle. You liberals just need to accept that banning guns will not do a god damn thing.

 

[Ronstang]

The gun genie is out of the bottle. You liberals just need to accept that banning guns will not do a god damn thing.

They aren't even smart enough to realize the 2nd amendment was put into place not only for national defense but also to prevent an oppressive government.....the irony is thick considering they want to be oppressive and take the 2nd amendment away. Such silly fools they all are.

 

[LegendKiller]

so the gun owners would fight the non-gun owners or the military, who would be enforcing this?
My money is on the military.

LOL - so not only are you going to shred the Constitution by confiscating firearms intended as a check against a tyrranical government, but you're going to declare martial law and violate Posse Comitatus Act.

You are truly a lost individual. This isn't some 3rd world country where the minority of this country can use the military to enact some sort of social engineering to dominate the majority.

Not to mention you're utterly forgetting about pretty much every asymmetrical war in the last 70 years.

If you thought Fallujah was bad...

 

[Zorba]

So what your saving is you found a place to save some federal $$$.

Considering that graph is obviously completely misleading. I am assuming the "traffic research" includes road design assessments that are needed for designing new roads. Not a good place to cut funding.

 

[LegendKiller]

It's interesting.. gun control is such a scary word to extreme right wingers, when in truth most in the slight right, middle and left would have zero problem with a responsible person having a gun to protect their property.

What gun control activists don't want however is the wild west, daily gun violence or something I happened to see recently..

Not far from my work on the way home in a Pathmark department store.. this one lady has her baby on the shopping cart, she goes in front of the cart to pay.. the person behind her is there with his wife and kids, leans over to fetch a divider so he can put the divider and then some of his stuff on the rolling belt and the lady starts talking shit about how he's a pedophile for approaching her baby and will kill him outside with her gun. He said whatever.. continued putting stuff on the belt and she threw stuff at him. Then it became a fight. Security had to kick them both out.

If I'm forced to choose between 2nd amendment rights which guarantees everyone a gun and gun control which can prevent crazies like her having guns while regular normal people are ok.. I think I'll choose for gun control so that the crazy lady doesn't have a gun.

It's hilarious that people like you are more than willing to throw law abiding gun owners under the bus for the actions of the very few. Those being the few dozen people killed per year in mass shootings.

However, when somebody calls into question black violence, which is most of the gun violence after removing suicides, everybody loses their shit and cries "You can't blame black people!"

 

[MongGrel]

The liberal militia needs more Nuklar weapons.

:sneaky:

 

[ivwshane]

Threads like this are fun, and you are making a partisan ass of yourself like everyone else, so thanks for contributing.

Oh oh! Looks like I hit a nerve! I guess when shown a mirror, not even you like what you see.

 

[mikeymikec]

The one with fewer stupid restrictions on rights since mass shooting deaths are statistically insignificant. From 2000-2014 the U.S. had 133 mass shootings with 487 dead. That's 34 annually, in a country of roughly 310 million. So in a given year my risk is 0.00109%. For context, drowning deaths were 1,400 times more common in the U.S. And it's not even in the Top 40 causes of death.

Fair point; I should have factored in all gun-related incidents. I also didn't convey the main thrust of my question in the way I originally intended.

You clearly advocated a stance that lobbying to protect gun laws directly correlates to contributing to mass shootings, hence the response.

No, I put forward a hypothetical question, since glenn1's opinion on this topic was pretty clear, asking him whether he'd do the exact opposite of his opinion in reality is rather pointless, no?

Of course I don't have the mindset of an infantilized prole so YMMV.

Yet you either are hypocritical enough or lacking sufficient self-awareness in your opening counter argument to resort to insults.

 

[BoberFett]

You're really thinking wrong again per usual, and I have no idea were you got the notion that I had ever thought that to begin with.

Must be more personal projection on your part.

Your very good on being a bit narrow minded like that.

Your IQ is somewhere in the vicinity of 90, isn't it?

 

[mikeymikec]

Don't forget other UK classics, such as ignoring mass incidence of rape because the perpetrators were Muslim, and nobody wanted to appear "racist" by investigating.

So yeah, it's pretty funny when the UK accuses the US of being backwards.

By this rationale, citizens from one country should not criticise the practices of another country unless the history of their own is entirely fault-free (even on irrelevant points to topic in question).

 

[flexy]

not only for national defense but also to prevent an oppressive government...

In real practice I always find this argument hilarious....and delusional.

If the gvt had a reason to "go against someone", do you think that them owning guns would stop them? Do you think that in a hypothetical scenario of a clash of "the people" vs. "the government" the people have a chance, even with them owning guns?
(For me this is as delusional as the random serial killer/criminal barricading themselves in a house with guns, standing against SWAT teams, thinking he would "win" in a stand-off). The "security" that guns would give someone "against a bad government" only exists in those people's heads, it's not real.

 

[glenn1]

In real practice I always find this argument hilarious....and delusional.

If the gvt had a reason to "go against someone", do you think that them owning guns would stop them? Do you think that in a hypothetical scenario of a clash of "the people" vs. "the government" the people have a chance, even with them owning guns?
(For me this is as delusional as the random serial killer/criminal barricading themselves in a house with guns, standing against SWAT teams, thinking he would "win" in a stand-off). The "security" that guns would give someone "against a bad government" only exists in those people's heads, it's not real.

Great Britain didn't think there was a question in "the people vs the government " back in the 1770s either and look how that went.

 

[NAC4EV]

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every mass killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal.
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24VA0tTTsvM
No one needs to own a firearm whose only design is to kill people.

 

[OverVolt]

In real practice I always find this argument hilarious....and delusional.

If the gvt had a reason to "go against someone", do you think that them owning guns would stop them? Do you think that in a hypothetical scenario of a clash of "the people" vs. "the government" the people have a chance, even with them owning guns?
(For me this is as delusional as the random serial killer/criminal barricading themselves in a house with guns, standing against SWAT teams, thinking he would "win" in a stand-off). The "security" that guns would give someone "against a bad government" only exists in those people's heads, it's not real.

What do you think my post about Thailand was all about?

In 2014 their government was overthrown by a military coup.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Thai_coup_d'état

 

[LegendKiller]

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every mass killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal.
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24VA0tTTsvM
No one needs to own a firearm whose only design is to kill people.

There is no weapon that isn't designed to kill people as a derivative of its originally intended use.

There is nothing different regarding an ak47 than a 30-06 rifle. Nothing. Both semi auto. Pretty much the same round.

Your idiotic logic is how UK got to banning knives. Soon it will be clubs. It is already happening that words are being banned because they hurt.

Fucking liberals.

 

[brianmanahan]

serious question: how would people go hunting if guns were illegal?

 

[MrPickins]

In real practice I always find this argument hilarious....and delusional.

If the gvt had a reason to "go against someone", do you think that them owning guns would stop them? Do you think that in a hypothetical scenario of a clash of "the people" vs. "the government" the people have a chance, even with them owning guns?
(For me this is as delusional as the random serial killer/criminal barricading themselves in a house with guns, standing against SWAT teams, thinking he would "win" in a stand-off). The "security" that guns would give someone "against a bad government" only exists in those people's heads, it's not real.

Have you factored in that our soldiers are also citizens who might have second thoughts about fighting a war against other citizens?

Especially if things have gotten bad enough for a full-scale rebellion?

 

[Blanky]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ongress-to-lift-ban-on-gun-violence-research/

This graph would be meaningful if traffic's influence on our lives was only by how we die in it. Really, what sort of a comparison is this?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every mass killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal.
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24VA0tTTsvM
No one needs to own a firearm whose only design is to kill people.

Such acts can just as easily be committed with pistols instead of rifles. So banning certain scary-looking rifles does not do anything.

 

[Zor Prime]

Have you factored in that our soldiers are also citizens who might have second thoughts about fighting a war against other citizens?

Especially if things have gotten bad enough for a full-scale rebellion?

FWIW, our soldiers have an oath to fight domestic threats ... not only foreign ... and there's a whole bunch that are civilians today than there are currently serving.

Which is why I always find it funny when someone thinks our military would slaughter their own in the event of rebellion. It's not going to happen. There would be a military coup at most to put the government back into the hands of the people.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Oh look, it's the ghetto fab version of me.

Nice cornrows, Cupcake.

I picked it out just for you Princess. :wub:

 

[thraashman]

We don't need to abolish the Second Amendment or attempt to ban guns. We do need to declare the NRA the terrorist organization that they've become over the last 35 years or so. Really we just need to interpret the Second Amendment the way it was written, intended to be interpreted, and was interpreted for the first 200 years of its existence.

Also, the restrictions on the CDC to study gun violence need to be lifted. Unfortunately the GOP knows if the CDC studies gun violence the results will prove that improved gun control will be beneficial, and the GOPs NRA masters won't allow that. And since the NRA WANTS there to be more violence and death at the hands of firearms, they can't have anything happen that might fix the problem. Because then they might not be able to pedal fear into people buying more guns.

 

[1prophet]

In real practice I always find this argument hilarious....and delusional.

If the gvt had a reason to "go against someone", do you think that them owning guns would stop them? Do you think that in a hypothetical scenario of a clash of "the people" vs. "the government" the people have a chance, even with them owning guns?
(For me this is as delusional as the random serial killer/criminal barricading themselves in a house with guns, standing against SWAT teams, thinking he would "win" in a stand-off). The "security" that guns would give someone "against a bad government" only exists in those people's heads, it's not real.

You will end up with thousands of these guys and hundreds of thousands if not millions of supporters.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/...u-of-land-management-10-things-to-know-105735

 

[Darwin333]

So lets just say it got to the point where the government was going to take the citizens guns, who exactly would they get for the job? Those in the police and military are almost entirely pro gun, so good luck convincing them to do it.

Unfortunately I think the police would actually do it, they have gotten really used to violating our rights. The .mil, I'd think they would have a pretty hard time doing something like that on US soil.