Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deleted]

With so many muslims into usa soon peace and logic will make the gov to ban guns

[caervek]

Slavery was wrong, because it violated the basic fundamentals of the Constitution

Pretty sure it was wrong before you amended your constitution to ban it too.

[Svifnymr]

Pretty sure it was wrong before you amended your constitution to ban it too.

The point of his statement is that it was wrong because it violated the basic principles of the Constitution, long before it was specifically outlawed by a later amendment. The Constitutional compromises that allowed slavery from the start were basic violations of the very notions set forth in the rest of it. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that ALL men are created equal, except those guys, fuck those guys."

Though I would be curious when you thought it was "wrong", historically speaking. I don't mean to argue semantics, so you may have just meant the modern view of "it was always wrong, even before you recognized it", obviously. It's just that USA seems to get a lot of flak for slavery that was pretty common during those days and while it may have been long overdue, it's certainly not the worst timeline.

Now, a discussion on the failures after the end of slavery/civil war (which I think of like the differences between the end of WW1 and WW2) in rebuilding vs reparations is more important I think, but... well I'm not really sure why any of this matters to a gun thread except to disparage "slave owning founders".

[Ghostpanther]

Pretty sure it was wrong before you amended your constitution to ban it too.

I was going to answer your post, but Svifnymr did such a good job of answering it, there is no need.

[Melusine]

And guess what prevailing political ideology is at the forefront of not using the collective power and catalyst of government to enact change on those socioeconomic problems? Which ideology is speeding headlong into a completely avoidable crisis due to their purity into ensuring taxes and public welfare are so low, so meager, that any attempt is hamstrung by lack of resources?

Word fucking salad.

See, it isn't the government's place to ensure your kids grow up well loved, mentally disciplined, not abused, and not neglected, and not being raised by their mothers, who have no idea who the father is, to begin with. But I suppose the personal responsibility and responsibility for your children aspect of what I said was totally lost on you.

But, since you asked about which ideology, I'm going to select Feminism as the one that is encouraging women to fuck up their homes, disrespect the men and fathers to their children, demand affirmative action and work, rather than stay with the kids and raise them, instead letting them be abused. That ideology has sold women of every stripe the lie that they can be just like men, when it was never really about equality, it was always about symbiosis of relationships. Feminist activism has turned the courts against men in family courts, doesn't punish women the same way it does men for identical crimes, and anyone who challenges this shit gets pilloried in the eyes of society. That would be a good place to reverse course, but in the meantime, arm law abiding adults, including teachers, and encourage them to defend the children under their keep.

[caervek]

Though I would be curious when you thought it was "wrong", historically speaking.

Always, historically speaking, it doesn't magically become right just because a country has no law against it or the US constitution is okay with it. That just means the laws of that country or the US constitution is wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

USA seems to get a lot of flak for slavery

Which is pretty comical considering it was IIRC the second major country to ban it, and only a year after Britain did.

It's even funnier when you consider Britain didn't issue a decree banning slavery throughout its colonies for another 26 years which means Canada was still dealing in slaves a quarter century after the USA stopped.

[lockedout]

The point of his statement is that it was wrong because it violated the basic principles of the Constitution, long before it was specifically outlawed by a later amendment. The Constitutional compromises that allowed slavery from the start were basic violations of the very notions set forth in the rest of it. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that ALL men are created equal, except those guys, fuck those guys."

Well to be fair "those guys" weren't considered men IIRC they were just property.

[Ghostpanther]

Always, historically speaking, it doesn't magically become right just because a country has no law against it or the US constitution is okay with it. That just means the laws of that country or the US constitution is wrong.

- - - Updated - - -


Which is pretty comical considering it was IIRC the second major country to ban it, and only a year after Britain did.

It's even funnier when you consider Britain didn't issue a decree banning slavery throughout its colonies for another 26 years which means Canada was still dealing in slaves a quarter century after the USA stopped.

None of that really matters when addressing Gun Control. There is nothing about the right under the Second which would be a violation of the basic human rights the Constitution gives. One can even argue, it would be a violation of human rights not to have it.

Slavery is a totally different issue, which was addressed and corrected less than 100 years after the birth of the nation. The Second has survived over 200 years now. Sure , any part of the US Constitution can be amended. There is a process and it is not based on popular majority opinion. Any citizen of the US is free to pursue/push for any amendment. Any outside of the US, can give their opinions. But it means nothing more than that.

[caervek]

None of that really matters when addressing Gun Control.

Never said it did, I was replying to the post about if slavery was/wasn't wrong before the constitution was amended to ban it (it was).

[Daelak]

Word fucking salad.

See, it isn't the government's place to ensure your kids grow up well loved, mentally disciplined, not abused, and not neglected, and not being raised by their mothers, who have no idea who the father is, to begin with. But I suppose the personal responsibility and responsibility for your children aspect of what I said was totally lost on you.

But, since you asked about which ideology, I'm going to select Feminism as the one that is encouraging women to fuck up their homes, disrespect the men and fathers to their children, demand affirmative action and work, rather than stay with the kids and raise them, instead letting them be abused. That ideology has sold women of every stripe the lie that they can be just like men, when it was never really about equality, it was always about symbiosis of relationships. Feminist activism has turned the courts against men in family courts, doesn't punish women the same way it does men for identical crimes, and anyone who challenges this shit gets pilloried in the eyes of society. That would be a good place to reverse course, but in the meantime, arm law abiding adults, including teachers, and encourage them to defend the children under their keep.

Yeah, you're an incel.

It is the government's "place" to address the grievances of it's citizens. Much like during desegregation and Civil Rights Movement. The government and its services (universal healthcare and education) can address widespread depression, self harm, sadistic tendencies in mentally ill people who may have a psychotic break and harm themselves and other people. Saying personal responsibility is good for conservative political rallies, but does nothing in actual implementation of policy, unless you go full authoritarian and start passing laws about what people can do in their homes.

[Ghostpanther]

Never said it did, I was replying to the post about if slavery was/wasn't wrong before the constitution was amended to ban it (it was).

Fair enough. I guess I misinterpreted your responses from your earlier response to my point about slavery was wrong and corrected, as a point about why the Second should be amended. My apologies.

[Stormdash]

Yeah, you're an incel.

It is the government's "place" to address the grievances of it's citizens. Much like during desegregation and Civil Rights Movement. The government and its services (universal healthcare and education) can address widespread depression, self harm, sadistic tendencies in mentally ill people who may have a psychotic break and harm themselves and other people. Saying personal responsibility is good for conservative political rallies, but does nothing in actual implementation of policy, unless you go full authoritarian and start passing laws about what people can do in their homes.

With your first sentence you are perilously close to understanding something fundamental about the nature of the human experience. Depends entirely on how you would answer the question of why it is ostensibly a government's place to do as you are saying. Hint: it isn't because we "have to have an authority", it isn't because, pace Obama, because government is the one thing "we all belong to," and it isn't because the state is our parent and we its children.

[Svifnymr]

Which is pretty comical considering it was IIRC the second major country to ban it, and only a year after Britain did.

It's even funnier when you consider Britain didn't issue a decree banning slavery throughout its colonies for another 26 years which means Canada was still dealing in slaves a quarter century after the USA stopped.

It's sort of hilarious when you look at some of the timelines. It's not hilarious, because it's people, but sort of is because they literally ban the slave trade, then ban the slave trade, then hey, lets ban the slave trade. You know what, next lets ban the slave trade. That didn't do anything, so we should ban the slave trade this time.

Lack of enforcement (if such is even possible on the high seas and foreign countries), but also the idea that you ban the slave trade, but not the actual slavery. The Emancipation Proclaimation is another "uh, okay" moment. When you're at war with someone and free THEIR slaves, but not your own, that's really standing up for human rights!

Stepping stones obviously, but what a path.

Also, on the UK law, they didn't actually outlaw slavery in England until 2010...


Anyway, it's all off topic, and while we could tie it back to guns, I think we all agree slavery is bad, so meh.

[Ghostpanther]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/19...n-firearm.html

Michael Vines has his alleged crime written all over his forehead.

After he was involved in a car accident, Vines allegedly tossed a loaded .38-caliber revolver into the grass, according to the Greenville Police Department. However, according to police, Vines is federally prohibited from possessing a gun.

Aside from his inability to possess a firearm, Vines has a particularly distinctive feature that made this case stand out a little more: he has a large tattoo of a gun across his forehead.

Now this is a real gun nut. lol!

[Melusine]

Yeah, you're an incel.

No, dumbass, I'm a father that has experienced the family court system first-hand. Oddly, that has not changed my mind on getting sex from women on a regular basis. But, nice try as an ad-hominem.

It is the government's "place" to address the grievances of it's citizens. Much like during desegregation and Civil Rights Movement. The government and its services (universal healthcare and education) can address widespread depression, self harm, sadistic tendencies in mentally ill people who may have a psychotic break and harm themselves and other people. Saying personal responsibility is good for conservative political rallies, but does nothing in actual implementation of policy, unless you go full authoritarian and start passing laws about what people can do in their homes.

None of any of this shit has anything to do with gun kontrol being a Nazi-esque tactic to disarm the law abiding. but, point by point, and try to stay on track this time.

It is the government's "place" to address the grievances of it's citizens.

But it is not the place of government to raise our children, or incentivize shitty behavior on certain subgroups of society with no recourse. It is not their place to infringe on our rights, and it is certainly not the government's place to punish the law abiding for the deeds of criminals, it's their job to punish the guilty. Period! End of Story. If you are of any other opinion, you're part of the problem, not the solution.

The government and its services (universal healthcare and education) can address widespread depression, self harm, sadistic tendencies in mentally ill people...

LOL!!! Given the government's track record, you forgot to mention that they may actually be part of the problem. Where you need to understand the way this translate into gun kontrol, comrade, is that a majority of the people who harm other people, they are not mentally ill, they are just plain evil. They were raised bad, abused, neglected, and no one stepped in to fix it, instead, encourage single parent mothering, and use a huge amount of tax dollars to support women who systematically shit out more offspring as a way to garner more welfare, they are part of the problem.

Universal healthcare is a joke. Canada's system, as an example, is rationed out so much, if Canadians have the money, they come to the US for many treatments, and fuck the rest of the population that just have to wait. Sure, they won't get bankrupted if they ever get realllly sick, but on the bright side, they may die, and never get themselves to the point that they would have needed to file medical bankruptcy, and you want to bring that shit here?!!?

And Education..... indoctrination, you'll forgive me if I don't applaud a system tasked with teaching our kids, and graduating them often unable to even read. Higher education is turning out students coming out dumber than they went in and tens of thousands of dollars in debt for a useless degree in Lesbian dance theory. I will not applaud this as a breakthrough for the future.

Saying personal responsibility is good for conservative political rallies, but does nothing in actual implementation of policy...

It would go a long way in making laws and policies not even necessary, but even if that was true, undercutting the rights of the law abiding because of the acts of the criminals is not the way to go about it. I'd argue that government fucked up when it though it'd be good policy to enact the "gun free zone" laws, as they have encouraged mass shootings. No criminologist or criminal economist finds these to be a good thing, and as they lay out the proof, only a handful of the mass shooting that has occurred have not occurred in gun free zones. The rest ALL occurred in gun free zones. And why haven't they ever occurred in places where guns are plentiful? because, as some dumbasses try to do periodically, they're going to attack the police and get even with those "fuckin pigs", they never become mass shootings, because the cops kill the fucker, often being the only casualty. And they have never been attempted at gun shows or NRA conventions. Remove the status of "gun free zone" from schools, it is no longer safe to just shoot up. It's why James Holmes went several theaters out of his way to find the one in his area that was a gun free zone.

...unless you go full authoritarian and start passing laws about what people can do in their homes.

Like Hitler did in 1939, when he decided to invade people's homes, round them up and cart them off to concentration camps. Oh, but that kind of shit could NEEEVERRR happen in the US, because.... get the fuck out of here. We do not have a benevolent government system. Look how the left treats the right, and vice versa. Although it also seems like many of the same precursors are popping up in the US as what was popping up in Germany post-Versailles. The Germans lost WWI, and began demonizing Jews, among others, and in record time, had managed to thought control its own people to be ok with the Jews being sent off, and then political dissidents, and then homosexuals, and then gypsies, and finally, communists, before they were stopped by the Allied Forces. We have a leftist media doing a lot of the same Goebbels style propaganda, most rational people call fake news, because it's harder to get away with that shit in a world with the internet, but so many people eat this shit up, they know the right is evil, and it has not been seen in US history since the Civil War the degree of political strife we have in this country.

It's time to get the government tit out of your mouth and think on your own. The sooner, the better. You kind of sound like a pussy begging soy boy, though, so, I won't hold my breath.

[Daelak]

None of any of this shit has anything to do with gun kontrol being a Nazi-esque tactic to disarm the law abiding. but, point by point, and try to stay on track this time.

It isn't, since the grievances being aired by the public for gun control is an organic process in a democracy, the radicalization and response by the NRA and other gun rights groups since the 70's, is manufactured for maximum delusion. See your own post here, an amalgamation of right wing memes that were created after desegregation, a mish mash of ideas that, when polled as singular questions, hardly receive a quarter of support from the public. But then again, you don't "trust" or "believe" polls due to liberal ivory tower elitism.

But it is not the place of government to raise our children, or incentivize shitty behavior on certain subgroups of society with no recourse. It is not their place to infringe on our rights, and it is certainly not the government's place to punish the law abiding for the deeds of criminals, it's their job to punish the guilty. Period! End of Story. If you are of any other opinion, you're part of the problem, not the solution.

Sure, in your head this would be wonderful utopia, but here in reality, where deadbeat fathers, which you may be only a couple breakdowns or setbacks away from yourself it seems, do lose custody of their children, our society has deemed it worth the time and resources to provide a modicum of life for orphans.

No right is unlimited, and we de facto agree to these curbs on absolute freedom by living in society. It's scary that you have a child and you still espouse this sort of ideology.

LOL!!! Given the government's track record, you forgot to mention that they may actually be part of the problem. Where you need to understand the way this translate into gun kontrol, comrade, is that a majority of the people who harm other people, they are not mentally ill, they are just plain evil. They were raised bad, abused, neglected, and no one stepped in to fix it, instead, encourage single parent mothering, and use a huge amount of tax dollars to support women who systematically shit out more offspring as a way to garner more welfare, they are part of the problem.

Right, appealing to "good and evil" is a white flag, exposing your aversion to thinking critically about issues, preferring a much easier to digest, binary view on life. Again, if I knew you, this would be another red flag to contact government authorities about your mental faculties and providing custody over children.

This sounds like more projecting of your own shortcomings and failures in your relationship with the mother of your child, something a rugged conservative individualist who don't need no big gubmint would never get into.

Face it, you failed to make the proper sacrifices to make your relationship work, instead you found solace in blaming society, the courts, the mother herself, instead of being a man and taking responsibility for your actions and acknowledging that you failed to achieve the conservative zenith two gender parent household.

Universal healthcare is a joke. Canada's system, as an example, is rationed out so much, if Canadians have the money, they come to the US for many treatments, and fuck the rest of the population that just have to wait. Sure, they won't get bankrupted if they ever get realllly sick, but on the bright side, they may die, and never get themselves to the point that they would have needed to file medical bankruptcy, and you want to bring that shit here?!!?

More uninformed pablum. The thing about universal healthcare that makes is an absolute superior choice over a fragmented public/private health insurance system is due to the size of the risk pools people are in. Even the largest health insurance carriers do not have actuarial pools in the hundreds of millions as all other developed countries do.

And Education..... indoctrination, you'll forgive me if I don't applaud a system tasked with teaching our kids, and graduating them often unable to even read. Higher education is turning out students coming out dumber than they went in and tens of thousands of dollars in debt for a useless degree in Lesbian dance theory. I will not applaud this as a breakthrough for the future.

More projection on your part, and again exposes your own shortcomings and aversion to critical thinking, rooted in both your failure as a student and being unable to reconcile your relationship with the mother of your child, forcing your child into the liberal kingdom of single-parent patronage, the nightmare scenario for any self-respecting rugged conservative individualist.

It would go a long way in making laws and policies not even necessary, but even if that was true, undercutting the rights of the law abiding because of the acts of the criminals is not the way to go about it. I'd argue that government fucked up when it though it'd be good policy to enact the "gun free zone" laws, as they have encouraged mass shootings. No criminologist or criminal economist finds these to be a good thing, and as they lay out the proof, only a handful of the mass shooting that has occurred have not occurred in gun free zones. The rest ALL occurred in gun free zones. And why haven't they ever occurred in places where guns are plentiful? because, as some dumbasses try to do periodically, they're going to attack the police and get even with those "fuckin pigs", they never become mass shootings, because the cops kill the fucker, often being the only casualty. And they have never been attempted at gun shows or NRA conventions. Remove the status of "gun free zone" from schools, it is no longer safe to just shoot up. It's why James Holmes went several theaters out of his way to find the one in his area that was a gun free zone.

So the logical end-point for your society would to be to have every public place a hard target, equipped with armed guards? That doesn't sound free nor conducive to pursuing a life of liberty.

Pass legislation that restricts the access of firearms to the mentally-ill and people who have been charged with domestic assault or worse, would absolutely lower the incidence of firearm violence in this country without curbing the rights of the law abiding gun owners.

Registering firearms, semi-annual firearm training, and mandating firearm safes in every firearm-owning household and vehicle, would absolutely lower the incidence of firearm violence and theft, without curbing the rights of the law abiding gun owners.

Guess who is against these proposals?

Like Hitler did in 1939, when he decided to invade people's homes, round them up and cart them off to concentration camps. Oh, but that kind of shit could NEEEVERRR happen in the US, because.... get the fuck out of here. We do not have a benevolent government system. Look how the left treats the right, and vice versa. Although it also seems like many of the same precursors are popping up in the US as what was popping up in Germany post-Versailles. The Germans lost WWI, and began demonizing Jews, among others, and in record time, had managed to thought control its own people to be ok with the Jews being sent off, and then political dissidents, and then homosexuals, and then gypsies, and finally, communists, before they were stopped by the Allied Forces. We have a leftist media doing a lot of the same Goebbels style propaganda, most rational people call fake news, because it's harder to get away with that shit in a world with the internet, but so many people eat this shit up, they know the right is evil, and it has not been seen in US history since the Civil War the degree of political strife we have in this country.

There is no evil, only human. No wicked spirits occupying the heads of teenage and young adult white males, just a toxic mix of entitlement, underemployment, and their disbelief that a woman can reject their sexual advances.

You have been spoonfed decades old conservative material, making you reflexively say "big gubmint bad" "small gubmint gud" without knowing our history, and the history of US conservatism.

It's time to get the government tit out of your mouth and think on your own. The sooner, the better. You kind of sound like a pussy begging soy boy, though, so, I won't hold my breath.

Considering your writing level, you having a child out of wedlock, and you have 4 characters over 950 i-level, I can safely say I have a higher net worth, better education, and a social life.

[Ghostpanther]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/22...ry-police.html

Talk about being a good neighbor. One which had the means to stop criminals who where armed.

A pregnant pizza driver was being beaten with a rifle by two teens in southwest Atlanta on Wednesday night when a nearby resident, who owned a gun, saw the incident and sprang into action, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.

“Drop the gun or I’ll drop you.”
- Dennis Madaris, gun owner who broke up robbery attempt

[Melusine]

It isn't, since the grievances being aired by the public for gun control is an organic process in a democracy, the radicalization and response by the NRA and other gun rights groups since the 70's, is manufactured for maximum delusion. See your own post here, an amalgamation of right wing memes that were created after desegregation, a mish mash of ideas that, when polled as singular questions, hardly receive a quarter of support from the public. But then again, you don't "trust" or "believe" polls due to liberal ivory tower elitism.

The arguments for gun kontrol are all based on lies. I know you don't believe this, so, just going to say it here. If you have to lie to make your point, you're on the wrong side. That should be obvious, because if the point could stand on its own, it would be worthwhile. Left wing stats are always overinflated, and always compared to other things that have no significance to the issue at hand, it's why there is the crafting of the narrative, and most opponents of that position have no problem shooting it right out of the air, simply because it's all a bunch of bullshit.

Side note: If you believe polls, as you seem to do, then Brexit would have not passed, and Hillary would be president. The polls said so. Those are HUGE examples of how polls are horse shit. And they are not the only ones....

Sure, in your head this would be wonderful utopia, but here in reality, where deadbeat fathers, which you may be only a couple breakdowns or setbacks away from yourself it seems, do lose custody of their children, our society has deemed it worth the time and resources to provide a modicum of life for orphans.

I took responsibility for my situation. I got a divorce from an unfaithful woman that didn't want any responsibility for the kid, and then had to get custody of my daughter from her mother, of which I succeeded, and shoulder the responsibility of raising her myself, since as soon as she was in my possession, the ex flew the coup, and has not been part of my daughter's life. The process was bullshit, and had they listened to me in advance, the custody case would not have been necessary. Even with her putting obstacles in the path, like false sexual assault claims, that funnily enough, my daughter ratted her out on, I still won, but dealing with the family courts are a nightmare. And that is just the beginning....

I think you know you've lost, because the ad hominems are just flowing out of you like man jizz out your ass.

No right is unlimited, and we de facto agree to these curbs on absolute freedom by living in society. It's scary that you have a child and you still espouse this sort of ideology.

Seems you don't understand what a right is. If it is your right, it is absolute, right up until you start infringing on other people's rights. The issue is always this.... every single right you have comes with at least one corresponding responsibility. So, in my case, I have the right to keep and bear arms. That right ends when it involves destroying other people's property or harming or killing people for no good reason. I have the right to say what I want, but making false accusations or lying about someone can set me up to be financially liable for the loss of reputation (unless you are a woman making a false rape accusation, apparently... nothing ever happens there) or I could be held criminally liable if the state tries a person only to find out I made the claim up entirely to sic the law on him as my own personal grievance squad.

Seems the one here that doesn't understand that is... YOU!

Right, appealing to "good and evil" is a white flag, exposing your aversion to thinking critically about issues, preferring a much easier to digest, binary view on life. Again, if I knew you, this would be another red flag to contact government authorities about your mental faculties and providing custody over children.

And not knowing the difference between subjective and objection reality is why you don't understand that some things are evil, in and of themselves. We have laws that deal in this subject. Unfortunately we also have other laws that are more regulatory, and really have no place on the books. Smart people, of which I do not believe you truly are, realize there is a difference between the two, instead of the whole "everything has nuance moral relativity" bullshit you seem to think exists. Sometimes it is a matter of good and evil. And targeting the law abiding to curb crime is ALWAYS objectively wrong.

This sounds like more projecting of your own shortcomings and failures in your relationship with the mother of your child, something a rugged conservative individualist who don't need no big gubmint would never get into.

Your assumption is nothing more than another ad hominem that you have no way of knowing for sure is. You're trying to win an internet argument off the premise of making attacks against me that you have no idea if they are true, which they are not, but that in itself demonstrates to me you don't know your dick from the one shoved up your ass. So, am I making assumptions on your sexuality? No, I really don't care, because it makes no difference to me what you are, who you are, just what you've said, and so far, it is functionally retarded, and quite lacking...

Face it, you failed to make the proper sacrifices to make your relationship work, instead you found solace in blaming society, the courts, the mother herself, instead of being a man and taking responsibility for your actions and acknowledging that you failed to achieve the conservative zenith two gender parent household.

By refusing to stay with a woman who hated me because I loved my daughter more than she did, and I took my daughter from her, which was no easy thing to do, but because I did, she now has a chance at a good life, and not one where she would grow up a mirror of her mother, but to actually care about her future, and something else I've learned... when you have a daughter as a man that YOU took from her mother, it just makes women melt. If there has ever been a time in my life I didn't have a woman, it was because my kid chased her off as "not good enough", or I told them to leave.

More uninformed pablum. The thing about universal healthcare that makes is an absolute superior choice over a fragmented public/private health insurance system is due to the size of the risk pools people are in. Even the largest health insurance carriers do not have actuarial pools in the hundreds of millions as all other developed countries do.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/03/re...ing-canadians/

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/bacchu...b_9646872.html

Since I mentioned Canadian health care, and you thought it'd be a good idea to go broad, I got the left AND the right's take on Canadian health care, and lo and behold, something they both agree on.... objectively, Canadian health care sucks.

Debunk'd

More projection on your part, and again exposes your own shortcomings and aversion to critical thinking, rooted in both your failure as a student and being unable to reconcile your relationship with the mother of your child, forcing your child into the liberal kingdom of single-parent patronage, the nightmare scenario for any self-respecting rugged conservative individualist.

You know that when you make assumptions without evidence or proof you make an ass out of you and some guy named "umption", which... really has nothing to do with me. Of course you don't, or you'd stay on task and deal with the points and not trying to discredit the writer.

So the logical end-point for your society would to be to have every public place a hard target, equipped with armed guards? That doesn't sound free nor conducive to pursuing a life of liberty.

Let's just go for the most extreme thing you can think of. Well, ok, fine, let's go with what you said here. Should every target be a hard target? I'd rather that over ones where bad people could do bad things and no one can stop them. Armed guards? I guess Parkland has demonstrated to me armed guards may not be enough if they are going to cower like dogs. Encouraging concealed carry, on the other hand, creates a tactical advantage for the citizenry in that, people who can shoot back are not immediately identifiable by anyone looking on with intent to cause harm, and it takes away the guarantee of the one-way firing range or shooting ducks in a barrel, which is what the gun free zone provides us now. If you don't like that idea, well, if people around you are carrying a gun and you don't know it, then ignorance is bliss. Better men than you will be the reason this shit stops.

And I say again, you never see this shit happen where guns are plentiful and ready to be used. If it still baffles you, you are in the wrong debate arena.

Pass legislation that restricts the access of firearms to the mentally-ill and people who have been charged with domestic assault or worse, would absolutely lower the incidence of firearm violence in this country without curbing the rights of the law abiding gun owners.

A black market will always exist. If your laws to ban shit worked, why do we have a drug epidemic in this country? Why is it that a majority of the guns used in crimes are purchased off the black market or stolen? And I'm going to say this again, most mentally ill people are not violent. Acting like the only way a criminal can get a gun is legally is also a load of bullshit. Criminals are not criminals because they obey the law. A man pissed off at his ex does violate restraining orders at will. The 3 day waiting period she needed to protect herself from this particular bad seed does her no good in the meantime. Your understanding of criminology and criminal economics is really quite underwhelming.

Registering firearms, semi-annual firearm training, and mandating firearm safes in every firearm-owning household and vehicle, would absolutely lower the incidence of firearm violence and theft, without curbing the rights of the law abiding gun owners.

Registering firearms has exactly one purpose. It lets the government know where they are so they can be collected at a later time. It is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment outright, because like it or not, it is an infringement, it also violates the 4th Amendment right to privacy, and likely the removal of that property by force through illegal seizure, and the 5th Amendment right against self incrimination, and presumption of innocence, as well as due process clause, and not just marginally, but overtly.

http://www.academia.edu/486853/Gun_C...cond_Amendment

Registration was fundamental in government sponsored genocides throughout the 20th century.

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

And concerning semiannual firearms training, just what do you think this will do? It affects the law abiding. Are you arguing for criminals to be able to handle their guns safely? Shoot better? Will criminals even attend this shit? I doubt it. That proposal is redundant.


And mandating firearm safes for everyone who owns a firearm. Got news for you there, most people with firearms have them already without it being mandated. I do. I have a couple of them, actually. That said, if I needed to get into one without a key or the combination, I could in 10 minutes with a cutting torch. Maybe not even 10 minutes in some cases. This is not obscure knowledge, and no safe on earth is so durable that it cannot be opened. And I'm not even talking about a high dollar cutting torch (of which I also have, because my job and all), it is a good idea to own a safe, sure, but that is not a guarantee. But you know, our government are a bunch of overassertive dumbasses, and like the assholes that run DC, it would have to be stored in a safe, and disassembled if kept in the house. Perfect if you are a burglar that can just shoot the owner while he is fucking around trying to get his firearm back together under high stress, and then the firearm is taken, reassembled and is now stolen. Hurdles for the law abiding are bullshit. They undercut the right, and render it as useless as possible, and when the criminals capitalize on this, it just becomes a reason to undercut it some more.

Guess who is against these proposals?

People smarter than you are. Ones that understand crime is not stopped by taking away the rights of the law abiding, and often, the exact opposite happens.

Let me explain this in terms that even a 6 year old can understand. In a herd of sheep, they fear the wolves. While they are in the herd, the wolves don't usually fuck with them, because that many sheep will turn on the wolf, and the rams will trample and gore a wolf. The wolf has learned to attack the flock in packs. Even in packs, they don't just attack the herd, because they can be still individually brought down by the rams and then trampled by the herd. they lie in wait. They see a young lamb, a pregnant ewe, a wounded, sick or elderly lamb, and they all attack that particular lamb. They change their tactics. Survival states that if they do not do something to protect and defend themselves, they will die.

Gun kontrol is the idea that if you convince the rams to give up their horns, the wolves will give up their teeth and become herbivores, just like the lambs. If that is your belief, you need to take the tide pod out of your mouth.... or go on ahead and bite down, I don't really give too much of a shit.

There is no evil, only human. No wicked spirits occupying the heads of teenage and young adult white males, just a toxic mix of entitlement, underemployment, and their disbelief that a woman can reject their sexual advances.

You actually believe this shit?!!? And yet you think your education is better than mine?!!? I think I'm doing ok for myself, personally, I could give a rat's ass what your life looks like. If there was no evil, there would be no violent crime. Violent crime is inherently evil. If you are of any other opinion, you're objectively wrong.

You have been spoonfed decades old conservative material, making you reflexively say "big gubmint bad" "small gubmint gud" without knowing our history, and the history of US conservatism.

Well, you've been spoonfed the opposite, apparently. Turns out, you're full of shit, too.

Considering your writing level,

And you want to lecture me on my writing level?!!? get fucked....

you having a child out of wedlock

lol.... this just gets dumber and dumber....

, and you have 4 characters over 950 i-level

Low bar you have set, there. It takes only minimal effort to get there. If that isn't the case for you, not only are you a bad debater, but a bad gamer.

I can safely say I have a higher net worth, better education, and a social life.

More shit you have no proof of. And even if you are right on all those things, it still doesn't make you correct on ANY of the shit you just said, nor does it make you a better person. Well, two can play this fucking game. You have put 14,048 posts on this website since March of 2009. That an awful lot of posting, and you've been doing it for some time now. Maybe that's why you can't get 4 toons to 950 item level....Hell, that's an awful lot of time being an armchair warrior, and you expect me to believe you're not some basement dwelling fucktard hiding behind a computer screen acting like you are something more than you are, while offering no details about it?!?!? Get fucked....

I know you think you're saying something profound here. The fact that you were more willing to attempt to be more dismissive toward me as a way to discredit my points while ignoring the points made. Given the degree of your use of ad hominems, red herrings, logistical fallacies, and unexplained positions make the idea that you have any right criticizing my writing style dubious and completely dischargeable. That said, I can totally believe you have a better reeducation, I mean education than I do, most likely in a useless field where you paid for a god damned Starbucks degree. That said, I don't care about any of that, because it's irrelevant to the conversation, as are you....

[Laerrus]

It is a sad day in this country when a non-violent hero is shot and killed and his buddy injured for just doing their jobs.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/us/lo...led/index.html

[Ghostpanther]

It is a sad day in this country when a non-violent hero is shot and killed and his buddy injured for just doing their jobs.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/us/lo...led/index.html

That is sad indeed. I wonder if the shooter mistook the firemen for cops? Not much detail is there in the article. But another civilian was also shot and is in critical condition. My next question also would be, did the suspect have the firearm legally? California has some fairly strict gun control laws compared to most other states.