Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
by definition, everyone here is a statist. The very existence of government makes you a statist.
But to get on topic.
You support guns that kill people, but are against abortion ?
I hate to bring out an oldie, but its a goodie and answers this quite well.....
"guns don't kill people, people do"
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
.
What exactly is pro gun/anti-gun ?
This question is far more complex than it appears on the surface and as such, deserves a complex answer that franklly, I'm too hopped up on coffee to give at the moment.
Let me just put it this way..... If you support laws and restriction that will ultimately make it harder for law abiding, peacable citizens to acquire a firearm for lawful use, then you are anti-gun.
Quote:
I believe in the right to bare arms, but i dont believe in an unchecked right nor do you other wise you would be advocating that every gun possible be made available for purchase.
You're right, I don't believe in an unchecked ability to acquire guns. The problem is, we can't agree on what constitutes a "reasonable" check on our Right. Do you subscribe to the Chicago definition? Or do you subscribe to lets say, Texas' definition?
If a law will be more effective at curbing the over-all volume of guns in the country rather than keeping gun out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unsound and adressing the root causes of the violence that currently ravages our country, then I don't see it as reasonable.
Thats about the best I can do in this impaired state of hyperness.....
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 25 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,568 posts, read 16,552,753 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
I hate to bring out an oldie, but its a goodie and answers this quite well.....
"guns don't kill people, people do"
exactly, which is why we should close loopholes and have better background checks so that crazy people dont get them.
And yes of course, there will always be someone who slips through the cracks, but there has never been a 100% solution to any problem.
Quote:
This question is far more complex than it appears on the surface and as such, deserves a complex answer that franklly, I'm too hopped up on coffee to give at the moment.
Let me just put it this way..... If you support laws and restriction that will ultimately make it harder for law abiding, peacable citizens to acquire a firearm for lawful use, then you are anti-gun.
I dont see that as Anti-gun, I also dont think it should be "easy to get a gun". HOWEVER, none of that matters. Nothing that was proposed on a national level back in February and March would have done such a thing, yet people who supported those legislation were still called anti gun. this is my opinion though, you may indeed see those things as restrictive.
Quote:
You're right, I don't believe in an unchecked ability to acquire guns. The problem is, we can't agree on what constitutes a "reasonable" check on our Right. Do you subscribe to the Chicago definition? Or do you subscribe to lets say, Texas' definition?
If a law will be more effective at curbing the over-all volume of guns in the country rather than keeping gun out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unsound and addressing the root causes of the violence that currently ravages our country, then I don't see it as reasonable.
Thats about the best I can do in this impaired state of hyperness.....
Not really sure what the Chicago or Texas definition is so it is hard to answer that question. And of course an ineffective law is unreasonable. I dont think anyone will debate that,
exactly, which is why we should close loopholes and have better background checks so that crazy people dont get them.
And yes of course, there will always be someone who slips through the cracks, but there has never been a 100% solution to any problem.
I agree we should have better background checks. For example, why not close what I see as the
"privacy loophole" that allows mentally unstable individuals to fly under the radar of background checks? Are we trying to do something that will actually be effective and work? Or are we trying to be politically correct?
The first thing that needs done is to put mentally unstable individuals names in to the system and prevent them from obtaining firearms through dealers. Before we can do all of that, we need to determine what type of condition should prevent someone from being able to own a gun. I don't think someone who spent a number of years on ritoline { or however it's spelled } should be denied their rights. Someone with Schitzophriia on the other hand? They have no business owning a firearm.
Quote:
Nothing that was proposed on a national level back in February and March would have done such a thing, yet people who supported those legislation were still called anti gun. this is my opinion though, you may indeed see those things as restrictive.
The thing is, the entire debate became about gun control in general and less about the specific legislation that was on the table. This is due in no small part, to the fact that the left went for broke with draconian proposals like assault weapons bans and "universal" background checks, magazine limits, along with countless other proposals in state governments. Thanks to them, absolutely nothing was accomoplished. Most of these proposals were either based on nothing significant to a firearm, {assault weapon ban} non-enforceable, { universal background checks} or very easy to work around fo an individual determined to do so. { magazine capacity limits}
I didn't oppose legislation that would have mandated background checks at gun shows for both dealers AND private sellers. That was simple enough, and pretty easy to enforce. However, universal background checks would be nearly impossible to enforce for reasons I've adressed many times on these boards.
exactly, which is why we should close loopholes and have better background checks so that crazy people dont get them.
Crazy people will always get them, you failed to understand this, the newtown freak tried to by some firearms from a gun store, he failed the background check, he then kill his mom and stole her firearms, so how did the background checks prevent this? how could a better background checks pervent someone from buying on the black market or stealing firearms?
And yes of course, there will always be someone who slips through the cracks, but there has never been a 100% solution to any problem.
So it wont solve the problem or make us safer, but give out your freedoms.
I dont see that as Anti-gun, I also dont think it should be "easy to get a gun". HOWEVER, none of that matters. Nothing that was proposed on a national level back in February and March would have done such a thing, yet people who supported those legislation were still called anti gun. this is my opinion though, you may indeed see those things as restrictive.
Define easy to get a gun, tell us how hard you want to make it to exercise a basic civil right? and the right to self protection?
we don't see them as restrictive, they are restrictive, they are an infringement on our right to keep and bear arms.
Not really sure what the Chicago or Texas definition is so it is hard to answer that question. And of course an ineffective law is unreasonable. I dont think anyone will debate that,
An ever more unreasonable law is a law the infringement on civil rights and does not to but create more. victims.
I mean how do you defend such cognitive dissonance.
A fetus does NOT = a human being.
What is truly bizarre are people who elevate a blob of nothing inside a woman's body to a higher level, then the life of a living breathing human being.
Woman has abortion.
Conservative response: OMG, you killed an unborn baby.
Five year old shoots two year old sister with his own personal loaded rifle given to him by his parents.
Conservative response: It was just an unfortunate accident. Don't you dare blame guns for this. No
What is truly bizarre are people who elevate a blob of nothing inside a woman's body to a higher level, then the life of a living breathing human being.
Woman has abortion.
Conservative response: OMG, you killed an unborn baby.
Five year old shoots two year old sister with his own personal loaded rifle given to him by his parents.
Conservative response: It was just an unfortunate accident. Don't you dare blame guns for this. No
How can you blame a machine for how it is used? and not the operator? or in that case the parents?
So its ok to kill a child in the womb, but not ok to kill them in a class room...yeah that makes sense.
How can you blame a machine for how it is used? and not the operator? or in that case the parents?
So its ok to kill a child in the womb, but not ok to kill them in a class room...yeah that makes sense.
What part of "A fetus does NOT = a human being" did you not understand?
And you missed my other point too. Most conservatives do not hold the parents responsible for letting their kids possess guns. Conservatives believe that they are just good American citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights. If a two your old gets killed by a gun, who cars? A two year old is not important. She has already been born. Conservatives have zero concern for children after they are born.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No 
