OftenWrong Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 48 minutes ago, Boges said: Gonna lower the age to buy a gun? The 2nd Amendment extends to 12 year olds right? The 2nd amendment already allows for minors to bear arms in some circumstances. For example, for self defence, with the permission of their parents. That can easily extend to the classroom, where it would be done under supervision of adults (the Teachers, etc.) Quote
Hal 9000 Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 30 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Plenty have been mentioned time and time again, but the gun nuts have the Republicans in their pocket. Such as what, common sense gun control? Yeah, what is that exactly? Quote The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronald Reagan I have said that the Western world is just as violent as the Islamic world - Dialamah Europe seems to excel at fooling people to immigrate there from the ME only to chew them up and spit them back. - Eyeball Unfortunately our policies have contributed to retarding and limiting their (Muslim's) society's natural progression towards the same enlightened state we take for granted. - Eyeball
blackbird Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 57 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Plenty have been mentioned time and time again, but the gun nuts have the Republicans in their pocket. If you listen to the NRA puppets talking points, there is no use in even trying to talk with them. Quote
Hal 9000 Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 14 minutes ago, blackbird said: If you listen to the NRA puppets talking points, there is no use in even trying to talk with them. Oh, so there are plenty of solutions, but why bother - right? Quote The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronald Reagan I have said that the Western world is just as violent as the Islamic world - Dialamah Europe seems to excel at fooling people to immigrate there from the ME only to chew them up and spit them back. - Eyeball Unfortunately our policies have contributed to retarding and limiting their (Muslim's) society's natural progression towards the same enlightened state we take for granted. - Eyeball
August1991 Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) On 2/20/2018 at 2:58 AM, bush_cheney2004 said: Yes, and even with 200 more years of hindsight, Pierre Trudeau still did not do as well as America's founders (e.g. "Notwithstanding Clause"). No one knew what wire-tapping, abortion rights, or Miranda rights were either. Fer gawdsakes, an 18th century, well-ordered militia has nothing to do with an individual's right, in the 21st century, to wander the streets with an AK-47. In the 1700s, postal service was a State matter - as your Constitution noted. Nowadays, with email, uh, less so. ====== b_c, the US Constitution is a remarkable document - but it's not the Koran; it's not the exact, immutable word of God. (According to some people, God spoke Arabic - and spoke verbatim to his Prophet only in Arabic - no interpretation.) The 2nd Amendment requires re-interpretation - just like the clause about postal powers. Edited February 23, 2018 by August1991 Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 6 minutes ago, August1991 said: Fer gawdsakes, an 18th century, well-ordered militia has nothing to do with an individual's right, in the 21st century, to wander the streets with an AK-47. California liberals grandfathered AK-47s before banning them....talk to the hand: https://www.revealnews.org/article/despite-ban-thousands-of-assault-weapons-remain-legal-in-california/ Quote b_c, the US Constitution is a remarkable document - but it's not the Koran; it's not the exact, immutable word of God (who apparently spoke Arabic) - as told verbatim to his Prophet. Correct, and it has been changed many times, but not to take away firearms, because they are already highly regulated by the Feds and states. 1 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
betsy Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) 13 hours ago, LonJowett said: The question was based on a hypothetical scenario. Rather than choose to answer it, you decided to question why anyone would ask a hypothetical question. I will be more direct. Hal was honest enough to admit that he feels there should be some sort of limit under the second amendment, although he was unwilling to express why he felt that limit should come after weapons that can shoot hundreds of rounds in a minute. I will phrase it in a way that will be difficult for you to obfuscate: DO YOU FEEL THERE SHOULD BE ANY LIMIT WHATSOEVER TO THE DEGREE OF WEAPONS ALLOWED UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT? If yes, what is that limit? If no, then American jihadis with nuclear ambitions are okay to you? I look forward to your refusal to answer. I based my answer to your hypothetical scenario! Hypothetical or not.....my response is sensible: What jihadi in his right mind would want to argue for his right to bear nuclear arms? He won't argue for it. He'll just do it! What? You think ganglords and dealers, will argue for their right to bear nuclear arms? You imagine them taking the matter to court, and fighting for their rights? "I have to protect my territory, your honor. It's my hood! They're packing nukes! I'se just gotta pack too! " You folks are in la-la-land. You imagine that everyone will play by the rules you set! Of course, there should be some limit. But that's not the point, is it? Wishing there should be some limit to anything - that includes weaponry - will not prevent the fact that there will be those who will invent something to surpass, even if it's just for bragging rights! Just look at your television! Or your computer, or the simple phone, as an example! Now....they're "smart" enough to look back at you, invading the privacy of your own home! Why did we get this far with technology? What can you do with kids (and kid-like adults) and their cell phone? None! Is there a limit to viruses and firewalls? Seems every year, there's always a new virus around..... and an anti-virus to be downloaded! Is there a limit? Just because people say that there should be a limit to this kind of weaponry.... will not mean that there will be! "Feel-good" words won't change reality. You're daydreaming. Your dream is dangerous - because all you'll accomplish is, tie up the hands of those who can, and who will defend you! How do you think from simple muskets and pistols, things had escalated from gatling guns to assault rifles....and who knows what other "amazing" guns are being invented at this moment? It's like the way with computers, tv, cellphones, etc..... You really think there'll be a limit to something that can change the tide of war? Dream on. Edited February 23, 2018 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) When life has no value - what do you expect? When kids grow up in a society that doesn't value "certain" lives - of course, respect for any life will go down the drain. All you need is something to justify it. We're getting what we've been sowing. There's a consequence to everything. You think things will get any better? Edited February 23, 2018 by betsy Quote
LonJowett Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, betsy said: When life has no value - what do you expect? When kids grow up in a society that doesn't value "certain" lives - of course, respect for any life will go down the drain. All you need is something to justify it. We're getting what we've been sowing. There's a consequence to everything. You think things will get any better? I knew you would try to avoid the question. That's why I used all caps. I'll try again to emphasize how determined you are to avoid answering. DO YOU FEEL THERE SHOULD BE ANY LIMIT WHATSOEVER TO THE DEGREE OF WEAPONS ALLOWED UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT? If yes, what is that limit? If no, then you are saying there is no point to even try and nobody would ever want nuclear weapons anyway and smart phones are watching us and what about abortion? Edited February 23, 2018 by LonJowett 1 1 Quote Oliver: Now why did you get two tickets to Chicago when you know that I wanted to spend my honeymoon in Saskatchewan? Stanley: Well, the man said there was no such place as sus - -Swee - Sas...
LonJowett Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 How about another simple question that you won't answer? If an American created his own nuclear weapon, would it infringe his second amendment rights to take it away from him? Quote Oliver: Now why did you get two tickets to Chicago when you know that I wanted to spend my honeymoon in Saskatchewan? Stanley: Well, the man said there was no such place as sus - -Swee - Sas...
betsy Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, LonJowett said: I knew you would try to avoid the question. That's why I used all caps. I'll try again to emphasize how determined you are to avoid answering. DO YOU FEEL THERE SHOULD BE ANY LIMIT WHATSOEVER TO THE DEGREE OF WEAPONS ALLOWED UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT? If yes, what is that limit? If no, then you are saying there is no point to even try and nobody would ever want nuclear weapons anyway and smart phones are watching us and what about abortion? I didn't avoid it! You didn't see it! Read again! Edited February 23, 2018 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) 54 minutes ago, LonJowett said: How about another simple question that you won't answer? If an American created his own nuclear weapon, would it infringe his second amendment rights to take it away from him? EH???? Here's a simpler question. Is it legal to make bombs? Edited February 23, 2018 by betsy Quote
LonJowett Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 15 minutes ago, betsy said: EH???? Here's a simpler question. Is it legal to make bombs? No, you answered nothing. That seems to be what you always do. Spew a bunch of gibberish about abortions and smart phones and how hypothetical questions are hypothetical, then say you responded and run away saying bye bye. Yes, making a bomb does not appear to be protected under the second amendment. Do you disagree with that? As per your response, do you think it's pointless to ban bomb-making because the bad guys don't follow the rules anyway? Quote Oliver: Now why did you get two tickets to Chicago when you know that I wanted to spend my honeymoon in Saskatchewan? Stanley: Well, the man said there was no such place as sus - -Swee - Sas...
OftenWrong Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 It is all too easy to be emotional, reactive and to offer up simple solutions to complex problems. Those solutions when viewed rationally would not solve the problem. For a situation like in the United States, the genie is already out of the bottle. Guns are everywhere, and are a normal part of everyday life. In some places, it's abnormal to NOT carry a gun. Assuming they would even try to do like some on the left are demanding be done around here, to confiscate all guns, there would be a black market unlike anything seen before. Since we are talking about the actions of a crazy person who wants to kill at any cost, this idea achieves nothing. Quote
Boges Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, OftenWrong said: The 2nd amendment already allows for minors to bear arms in some circumstances. For example, for self defence, with the permission of their parents. That can easily extend to the classroom, where it would be done under supervision of adults (the Teachers, etc.) So not only do teachers have to be trained to carry guns, they have to supervise children with guns. Edited February 23, 2018 by Boges Quote
DogOnPorch Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 Ahhhh...the longing for a perfect world where only the criminals and our masters have the guns. That would be perfect...perfect... 1 Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
LonJowett Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 8 minutes ago, OftenWrong said: Since we are talking about the actions of a crazy person who wants to kill at any cost, this idea achieves nothing. You're saying there is no way to make it more difficult for a psychopathic teenager to arm himself to the teeth so we should just let him do what he wants? Quote Oliver: Now why did you get two tickets to Chicago when you know that I wanted to spend my honeymoon in Saskatchewan? Stanley: Well, the man said there was no such place as sus - -Swee - Sas...
Boges Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 28 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: Ahhhh...the longing for a perfect world where only the criminals and our masters have the guns. That would be perfect...perfect... You mean like almost all the rest of the developed world? Quote
OftenWrong Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 28 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: Ahhhh...the longing for a perfect world where only the criminals and our masters have the guns. That would be perfect...perfect... Da, komrad!!! 1 Quote
Boges Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 It's adorable that you guys think your measly semi-automatic weapons would make it impossible for your government to kill you if they wanted to. 1 Quote
OftenWrong Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 28 minutes ago, LonJowett said: You're saying there is no way to make it more difficult for a psychopathic teenager to arm himself to the teeth so we should just let him do what he wants? More strict enforcement of laws already in place might have prevented this. That plus the news that the FBI ignored numerous warnings reported about the perpetrator, should be easily corrected. Holding gun stores liable for what happens after they sell a gun might be useful, if they don't already have such a law. It would force them to be more compliant, much like the laws we have that place some responsibility on pubs/ bars where people get too drunk and then go for a drive and kill someone. There's a few good ideas out there. What Trump has proposed is just that, an idea. He wants to see what others think to gauge the reaction, see if it's workable. If not, he will change it. Don't worry, president Trump will take care of it. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 4 minutes ago, Boges said: It's adorable that you guys think your measly semi-automatic weapons would make it impossible for your government to kill you if they wanted to. Famous words spoken to General Washington when facing the superpower of the day, Great Britain. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Boges Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: Famous words spoken to General Washington when facing the superpower of the day, Great Britain. Flint-Lock Muskets > Fighter Jets and Tanks It's ironic that the same people that are soooooo suspicious of their government are the same that want the Military to get blank cheques to make weapons they don't need. Edited February 23, 2018 by Boges 1 Quote
DogOnPorch Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 Just now, Boges said: Flint-Lock Muskets > Fighter Jets and Tanks It's ironic that the same people that are soooooo suspicious of their government are the same that want the Military to get blank cheques to make weapons they don't need. You're free to surrender ahead of time if the need arises. I'd help you. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Boges Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 13 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: You're free to surrender ahead of time if the need arises. I'd help you. Oh so you can fight off a Modern Military power already? Must have a swoot compound. Would love to visit sometime. 1 Quote
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.