Gun Control Thread- Should we?

Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

RedskinRat
12-20-2012, 02:12 PM
Yup.

So you gun fans, guarantee me that there is zero percent chance that a gun of yours will not be stolen and used to kill children. Zero percent chance. If you cannot make me this guarantee, then you can appreciate the important point that mredskins is trying to make.

Always making demands.

There is zero % chance my Glock could ever be found, let alone stolen. Now what guarantees do we have from you that our rights under the Constitution will remain intact?

Daseal
12-20-2012, 02:33 PM
Always making demands.

There is zero % chance my Glock could ever be found, let alone stolen. Now what guarantees do we have from you that our rights under the Constitution will remain intact?

Once you show me what 'well regulated militia' you're in.

firstdown
12-20-2012, 02:47 PM
Yup.

So you gun fans, guarantee me that there is zero percent chance that a gun of yours will not be stolen and used to kill children. Zero percent chance. If you cannot make me this guarantee, then you can appreciate the important point that mredskins is trying to make.

I can.

firstdown
12-20-2012, 02:49 PM
Once you show me what 'well regulated militia' you're in.

And you can show me where it says god name cannot be used in schools.

Lotus
12-20-2012, 02:50 PM
Always making demands.

There is zero % chance my Glock could ever be found, let alone stolen. Now what guarantees do we have from you that our rights under the Constitution will remain intact?

The only way that there is a zero % chance that your Glock will be found is if you cannot find it yourself. If you can find it, then there is a % chance, however small, that someone else can, too.

And if there is a percentage chance that a child killer could steal your gun, then logically, to that percentage you are aiding and abetting the child killer by owning that gun.

As for the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment needs to be re-examined. It may have worked in the 18th century, when people had flintlocks, but it is a disaster when it comes to 21st century weapons, as Newtown taught us all.

Lotus
12-20-2012, 02:52 PM
I can.

So you can't get to your guns yourself? Why own guns that you can't get to?

Fact is, if you can get to your gun, so can someone else.

Daseal
12-20-2012, 03:30 PM
And you can show me where it says god name cannot be used in schools.

I don't think this is the place to try to mix two decisive political battles. Let's focus this on the gun issue. We can discuss this in another thread, if you so desire.

The supreme court has yet to definitively rule on the meaning of the 2nd amendment. I read it as the point to guns is to maintain a militia (army) and others think that means more of an ad-hoc fashion militia where if shit goes wrong you band together.

It was wrong of my to push my interpretation of the 2nd ammendment on others since it has not been sufficiently defined.

Lotus
12-20-2012, 03:52 PM
I don't think this is the place to try to mix two decisive political battles. Let's focus this on the gun issue. We can discuss this in another thread, if you so desire.

The supreme court has yet to definitively rule on the meaning of the 2nd amendment. I read it as the point to guns is to maintain a militia (army) and others think that means more of an ad-hoc fashion militia where if shit goes wrong you band together.

It was wrong of my to push my interpretation of the 2nd ammendment on others since it has not been sufficiently defined.

To go with your flow, I'll raise these questions for the crowd: how is what is bolded "well-regulated," as the Constitution says? And isn't the bolded part what most people mean when they cite the 2nd Amendment?

One could argue that most people who cite their Constitutional right to arms are actually not within the Constitution at all because they are not engaging in a "well-regulated militia."

punch it in
12-20-2012, 03:56 PM
He would have found other guns.

Um in Newtown CT it might have been difficult for someone in his mental state to do so. I think that due to his mental state this was maybe not premeditated as much as a knee jerk reaction to the fact that they wound up in his hands. Regardless i was just pointing out the fact that Mrs Lanza did own guns.

RedskinRat
12-20-2012, 05:12 PM
The only way that there is a zero % chance that your Glock will be found is if you cannot find it yourself.

I don't need to explain myself to you however I am ex-military, have a long history of firearms experience and have my shit locked down. Just because you feel that my processes can't possible be error free doesn't make it so.

If you can find it, then there is a % chance, however small, that someone else can, too.

No, there is not. No chance they could gain access to it if it were found either.

And if there is a percentage chance that a child killer could steal your gun, then logically, to that percentage you are aiding and abetting the child killer by owning that gun.[QUOTE=Lotus;978294]

This person is committing a crime to get my firearm, how am I aiding and abetting?

Aiding and abetting applies to someone who assists or helps one or more other people commit a crime. To be held accountable as an aider and abettor, you must know of the criminal objective and do something to make it succeed.

Yet again you attempt to bluster through facts with hysterical rhetoric. Why is this child killer free? Isn't that a fault of the penal system?

[QUOTE=Lotus;978294]As for the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment needs to be re-examined. It may have worked in the 18th century, when people had flintlocks, but it is a disaster when it comes to 21st century weapons, as Newtown taught us all.

Sure, why not. Put it to a vote.

EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum