Gun Control Thread- Should we?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

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]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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]

Originally Posted by Lotus

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]

Originally Posted by Daseal

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]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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]

Originally Posted by Daseal

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]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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]

Originally Posted by Lotus

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.

Originally Posted by Lotus

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.

[quote=Lotus;978294]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?

Originally Posted by Lotus

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.

[Lotus]

[quote=RedskinRat;978331]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.



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

[quote=Lotus;978294]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.

Originally Posted by Lotus

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?



Sure, why not. Put it to a vote.

I have cited study after study and offered rational argument. I have not once offered "hysterical rhetoric."

1) You have glossed over the possibility that someone can steal your arms. If they are in a safe, they can be stolen. If they are in a silo 50 feet underground, they can be stolen. If you really think that your weapons are un-stealable, you need an education in both crime and physics.

This leads us to:
2) You are correct that when I used the phrase "aiding and abetting," I was not using it in the legal sense of knowing the criminal objective. I used it in the street sense. So let me rephrase: if you have a gun which is stolen by a killer, you have helped the killer get a gun. If you had no gun to steal, the killer cannot be armed by you. This is a simple point.

As for your question, "Why is the killer free?", there is a simple answer: first-time killer.

So, since you have not refuted my argument, let me re-state: if there is a percentage chance that your gun may be stolen, there is a percentage chance that you will supply a weapon to a killer of children. Do you really want to live with the knowledge that, by simply possessing a gun, you made it possible for someone else to kill children?

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Lotus

So, since you have not refuted my argument, let me re-state: if there is a percentage chance that your gun may be stolen, there is a percentage chance that you will supply a weapon to a killer of children. Do you really want to live with the knowledge that, by simply possessing a gun, you made it possible for someone else to kill children?

How do you get into any car and drive with a clean conscience, with that logic?

Oh, and you shouldn't even own a vehicle, you might help someone steal it and cause an accident with it.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I have cited study after study and offered rational argument. I have not once offered "hysterical rhetoric."

'Child killer' isn't hysterical rhetoric?

Originally Posted by Lotus

1) You have glossed over the possibility that someone can steal your arms. If they are in a safe, they can be stolen. If they are in a silo 50 feet underground, they can be stolen. If you really think that your weapons are un-stealable, you need an education in both crime and physics.

You are giving this wannabe 'child killer' a lot of credit for being determined and resourceful. You need an education in reality and possibly a deprogramming on woowoo mindset. Not a child-killer, yet.

Originally Posted by Lotus

This leads us to:
2) You are correct that when I used the phrase "aiding and abetting," I was not using it in the legal sense of knowing the criminal objective. I used it in the street sense. So let me rephrase: if you have a gun which is stolen by a killer, you have helped the killer get a gun. If you had no gun to steal, the killer cannot be armed by you. This is a simple point.

There is no 'street sense', it's either the legal term or you're wrong, and yet again, you're using deliberately incendiary rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Lotus

As for your question, "Why is the killer free?", there is a simple answer: first-time killer.

To clarify, you're suggesting that this future child killer has selected me to be a partner in crime? Complete scaremongering fantasy. Maybe it works with your classroom, not with adults.

Originally Posted by Lotus

So, since you have not refuted my argument, let me re-state: if there is a percentage chance that your gun may be stolen, there is a percentage chance that you will supply a weapon to a killer of children. Do you really want to live with the knowledge that, by simply possessing a gun, you made it possible for someone else to kill children?

You're giving yourself WAAAAAAAAAY too much credit for your argument that clearly isn't there when you read my counter.

If my handgun is used to kill someone it will be me using it and I will have exhausted every other option before doing so.

Maybe you should stick to arguing the adoption of Unicorn Leash Laws in that fantasy land you live in?

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

How do you get into any car and drive with a clean conscience, with that logic?

Oh, and you shouldn't even own a vehicle, you might help someone steal it and cause an accident with it.

Ah, the old "anything can be a weapon" argument.

The fact is, it wasn't a car which was used in Columbine, Aurora, or Newtown. It was guns. Therefore we have a gun problem, not a car problem.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

'Child killer' isn't hysterical rhetoric?



You are giving this wannabe 'child killer' a lot of credit for being determined and resourceful. You need an education in reality and possibly a deprogramming on woowoo mindset. Not a child-killer, yet.



There is no 'street sense', it's either the legal term or you're wrong, and yet again, you're using deliberately incendiary rhetoric.




To clarify, you're suggesting that this future child killer has selected me to be a partner in crime? Complete scaremongering fantasy. Maybe it works with your classroom, not with adults.



You're giving yourself WAAAAAAAAAY too much credit for your argument that clearly isn't there when you read my counter.

If my handgun is used to kill someone it will be me using it and I will have exhausted every other option before doing so.

Maybe you should stick to arguing the adoption of Unicorn Leash Laws in that fantasy land you live in?

1) If you think that "child killer" is "hysterical rhetoric," please consult a news source and find out what happened in Newtown, CT. "Child killer" references real, current events, not anything hysterical. Unless of course that you think it is hysterical to consider the murders of many young kids to be wrong.

2) I am not giving any killer too much credit. Once again, scan the newspaper. There you will read about weapons, stolen in Newtown and other places, which are then used to kill people.

3) As for your statement, "If my handgun is used to kill someone it will be me using it and I will have exhausted every other option before doing so," the laws of physics say that you cannot guarantee that. The brute fact is that your weapon may be stolen and then used to kill people, no matter how safely you think you have squirreled your weapon away.