Eddyr2 Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, Belly Bob said: How's that relevant to the point I made? We can still make it harder for people who would commit murder using a gun from getting a gun to commit murder, right? Point being, no matter what laws are passed, if a mass murder wants to a gun it would be easy to illegally buy 1 of the 300 million guns already on the streets. May felons buy guns illegally even though they are not allow to have a guns. some people are evil, sick or mentally unstable and if they want to kill people they will. With a legal gun, illegal gun, knife, plane, bat, car, explosives or anything else they could use. My point is, with this many gun already in the US the only real gun control would be for the feds to look for and find every gun in the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thc6795 Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 https://www.facebook.com/mike.doughty.18/posts/10215489797574858 I know sportsnut he really is black. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thc6795 Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 Seriously https://goo.gl/images/FnkzRT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZone Posted February 20, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 10 hours ago, RedZone said: Says the guy running with a Russian sexual predator, rapist and depraved executioner "avatar".. Big fan of beria, concha? Where is beria hiding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZone Posted February 20, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 8 hours ago, Eddyr2 said: Point being, no matter what laws are passed, if a mass murder wants to a gun it would be easy to illegally buy 1 of the 300 million guns already on the streets. May felons buy guns illegally even though they are not allow to have a guns. some people are evil, sick or mentally unstable and if they want to kill people they will. With a legal gun, illegal gun, knife, plane, bat, car, explosives or anything else they could use. My point is, with this many gun already in the US the only real gun control would be for the feds to look for and find every gun in the country. Why do you need an AR-15, fast eddy? That's the question. Does the Constitution promise you one on your 18th birthday? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZone Posted February 20, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 Is the NRA mentioned in the Constitution, fast eddy? Or, did the NRA write the Constitution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 Why does the second amendment not provide for me to have one of these? I need some heavy explaining done. How can this gun be disallowed to me if it is unconstitutional to infringe on my rights to bear? Dammit! I need some 'splainin' done. Not some it's a constitutional non-starter and I wish you luck bull. Explain. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 3 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said: Why does the second amendment not provide for me to have one of these? I need some heavy explaining done. How can this gun be disallowed to me if it is unconstitutional to infringe on my rights to bear? Dammit! I need some 'splainin' done. Not some it's a constitutional non-starter and I wish you luck bull. Explain. Uh, let me handle this, Eddy. Hawg, there are millions of guns already out there on the streets. Therefore, it would be pointless to try to restrict your access to such a gun, since you'd just find some other gun to do whatever you might want to do with this one. And more to the point, even if you couldn't find some gun as a substitute, you'd find something else to use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 13 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said: Why does the second amendment not provide for me to have one of these? I need some heavy explaining done. How can this gun be disallowed to me if it is unconstitutional to infringe on my rights to bear? Dammit! I need some 'splainin' done. Not some it's a constitutional non-starter and I wish you luck bull. Explain. Uh, think about it, Hawg, The flu has killed more people than guns like these have, right? But you're not going to ban human contact, are you? So how can you ban guns like these? It just doesn't make any sense. Think it through. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZone Posted February 20, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 What gets me is we had several really bad high risk intersections in the city at one time (every city has them). They had NO traffic lights and etc. A lot of accidents were occurring and a lot people were getting banged up, and some not making it. People made a big stink about it and guess what? The city put up some traffic lights....ding ding, no brainer. I don't blame the city really as neighborhoods grow, more drivers are hitting the road ways and whatnot. It was still a damn process. Here, we have AR-15s being used for mass destruction and we know it, yet we pump out 1.5 million new ones a year. Ding, ding, we lose! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddyr2 Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 2 hours ago, RedZone said: Why do you need an AR-15, fast eddy? That's the question. Does the Constitution promise you one on your 18th birthday? Don’t need one, don’t have one. I also don’t currently need a lawyer but I’m glad the constitution protects my right to one. no the constitution doesn’t promise anything to anyone, it only protects right of citizens given to us my our maker and sets up the framework to our Republic. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZone Posted February 20, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 22 minutes ago, Eddyr2 said: Don’t need one, don’t have one. I also don’t currently need a lawyer but I’m glad the constitution protects my right to one. The guy that just exercised his 2nd Amendment rights via AR-15 and mowed down 17 people has 3 or 4 lawyers. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Lawyers are indeed mentioned in the Constitution. AR-15s, son...not so much. Keep trying though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddyr2 Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 4 minutes ago, RedZone said: The guy that just exercised his 2nd Amendment rights via AR-15 and mowed down 17 people has 3 or 4 lawyers. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Lawyers are indeed mentioned in the Constitution. AR-15s, son...not so much. Keep trying though The constitution does not give us the right to take life. What he did was evil and wrong. the 2nd admendment protects our right to self defense, from evil people and the government it self if need be. Imagine if in this County the only people allow to bear arm were the State? I’m sure lot of people would upset if only the employees of the executive branch of the government had guns right now. Emails aren’t mentioned in the constitution does that mean they are not allow in court or are they advancement in technology? im not really trying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZone Posted February 20, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 Fast eddy, you are over the map. Slow down, take a deep breath and take a break. I do applaud your effort and ability to make an old man laugh though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeftOnBase Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 14 hours ago, Belly Bob said: How's that relevant to the point I made? We can still make it harder for people who would commit murder using a gun from getting a gun to commit murder, right? I'm not sold. Some people just "go postal" leaving their family and friends scratching their head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 1 hour ago, Eddyr2 said: The constitution does not give us the right to take life. What he did was evil and wrong. the 2nd admendment protects our right to self defense, from evil people and the government it self if need be. Imagine if in this County the only people allow to bear arm were the State? I’m sure lot of people would upset if only the employees of the executive branch of the government had guns right now. Emails aren’t mentioned in the constitution does that mean they are not allow in court or are they advancement in technology? im not really trying. This country will not allow the government to be the only people to own guns. Like you said the citizens of this country are allowed to protect themselves from others. Seems like gun-free zones are the problem. They are very easy soft targets where you know you have little to no opposition. We need to seriously consider arming more people and realize that in order to limit damage or possibly eradicate it people need to know that they will be forcing an armed opponent when walking into a school, church, movie theater etc. I can understand the argument to arming teachers but i dont believe that a teacher would have the stomach to shoot a teenager in order to stop a shooting. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddyr2 Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 21 minutes ago, HSFBfan said: This country will not allow the government to be the only people to own guns. Like you said the citizens of this country are allowed to protect themselves from others. Seems like gun-free zones are the problem. They are very easy soft targets where you know you have little to no opposition. We need to seriously consider arming more people and realize that in order to limit damage or possibly eradicate it people need to know that they will be forcing an armed opponent when walking into a school, church, movie theater etc. I can understand the argument to arming teachers but i dont believe that a teacher would have the stomach to shoot a teenager in order to stop a shooting. It would also help if the fbi would move quicker on people that have been know to be threats...this last shooter, San Bernardino and Orlando were all know to the FBI before the attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 Just now, Eddyr2 said: It would also help if the fbi would move quicker on people that have been know to be threats...this last shooter, San Bernardino and Orlando were all know to the FBI before the attacks. Right. Complete and utter failure of the FBI. They seem to be lacking in a lot of areas the FBI lately. J Edgar Hoover should be rolling over in his grave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 2 hours ago, Eddyr2 said: Don’t need one, don’t have one. I also don’t currently need a lawyer but I’m glad the constitution protects my right to one. no the constitution doesn’t promise anything to anyone, it only protects right of citizens given to us my our maker and sets up the framework to our Republic. 2 hours ago, Drummer61 said: Great response to a delusional "low information type"...But, he's learning.. I agree that the state's job is to protect the basic rights of its citizens. But I don't think anyone has ever thought that human beings have a basic right to bear arms. Rather, the story is supposed to go that we have a basic right to life or safety, which right implies the right to bear arms. But just like all rights, if we're not careful in the way that we articulate and defend them, they can bump up against other rights. If we're not careful in the way we articulate and defend the right to own guns, then that right can bump up against people's basic right to life and safety. So someone might well say that my basic right to life and safety implies all sorts of restrictions on your right to own guns. So framing the discussion in terms of rights doesn't resolve any of the deep issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 40 minutes ago, HSFBfan said: This country will not allow the government to be the only people to own guns. Like you said the citizens of this country are allowed to protect themselves from others. Seems like gun-free zones are the problem. They are very easy soft targets where you know you have little to no opposition. We need to seriously consider arming more people and realize that in order to limit damage or possibly eradicate it people need to know that they will be forcing an armed opponent when walking into a school, church, movie theater etc. I can understand the argument to arming teachers but i dont believe that a teacher would have the stomach to shoot a teenager in order to stop a shooting. Weren't there towns in the American West where most people carried guns and the upshot was that there were extremely high rates of gun violence and gun-related murders? And wasn't the solution to impose severe restrictions on who could carry guns and where? People were famous for how quickly they could draw their guns and kill other people. And famous gun slingers were often shot in the back at bars or parlors etc. And the cops had a hell of a time policing the towns, because everyone else also had guns. And so on. Or is that just misinformation that comes from the movies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeftOnBase Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 15 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said: Still not answering my question. I know the history. That is beside the point though. The SCOTUS is more than willing to uphold infringing on a felon's second amendment right, and to infringe on my right to a fully auto or nuclear warhead. Where there is a will, there is a way. The history is; there is not a will to infringe, except under certain circumstances, yet at some point there was that will to infringe under those certain circumstances. You can ban the scary looking guns and still have guns out there which can produce "mass murder." You could actually ban ALL guns and people with bad intentions will still kill in mass. Pipe bombs, pressure cooker bombs, gasoline and a match, etc. etc. .......Timothy McVeigh used fuel oil and fertilizer to kill 168 people. "Where there's a will, there's a way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 1 minute ago, Belly Bob said: Weren't there towns in the American West where most people carried guns and the upshot was that there were extremely high rates of gun violence and gun-related murders? And wasn't the solution to impose severe restrictions on who could carry guns and where? People were famous for how quickly they could draw their guns and kill other people. And famous gun slingers were often shot in the back at bars or parlors etc. And the Cops had a hell of a time policing the towns, because everyone else also had guns. And so on. Or is that just misinformation that comes from the movies? Thats why it was called the wild wild west. And real men showed up to the duals and died at high noon in front of the people of the town. Your not taking anyones gun. No law abiding citizen is going to give up their gun. So if thats the point your trying to make its not a point your going to see happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 46 minutes ago, LeftOnBase said: I'm not sold. Some people just "go postal" leaving their family and friends scratching their head. That's true. But it's also true that people rob banks and kidnap children etc., and of course we can't stop it all, especially if the criminals are extremely motivated, but we do what we can to prevent people from committing those crimes. Why would it be any different when it comes to gun-related crimes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 7th grader shoots himself in bathroom at school in Ohio...https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jackson-local-schools-ohio-lockdown-after-student-shoots-himself-on-campus/ Metal detectors at schools. Arm all security guards. Pass the bill that has been in Washington for over 2 years to let more law enforcement be able to work school security without penalizing their pension. Law Enforcement that are security guards should be allowed to carry no if ands or buts. these are rationale solutions to the situations going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 3 minutes ago, HSFBfan said: Thats why it was called the wild wild west. And real men showed up to the duals and died at high noon in front of the people of the town. Your not taking anyones gun. No law abiding citizen is going to give up their gun. So if thats the point your trying to make its not a point your going to see happen. Well, they would if we made different laws, like the laws they made to make those wild west towns less wild, right? My point was that it wasn't safer when we had less gun control, which is the point I thought you were making in your post. Maybe I missed your point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.