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.
Keep looking at that all the while know we don't have that (yet) in the U.S. and I should not need to say, why that is ...
We can not do anything about Bobby Joe and Betty Sue, shooting one another, but we can do something to prevent, becoming like all the other countries around the globe that are waking up to that and as citizens they can do nothing about it. They are dependent on the decision makers of their country, so here we are ...
We want to put a gun in Syrian citizen hands and say go shoot 'em, but in the same breath, we want to take away our guns?
Imagine how much safer the UK will be if every ISIS sympathizer had ready access to AR-15's and 40 round mags. I am sure it would be a much much safer place.
What Gun Law/s Would Have Prevented the Las Vegas Shootings?
The one that Democrats want, where it would be illegal to own a gun and illegal to purchase ammunition. Even then, it would take 100 years for all the guns to disappear.
That's one reason Democrats can't get elected anymore; they tend to want to live in an alternative universe.
On the other hand it works for Japan. So tell the Dems all they gotta do is repeal The Second and wait 100 years.
Maybe it is like the plan to prevent global warming by cleaning up the environment. Suppose we did the clean up and it turns out the cause of global warming was something else? Well, at least we cleaned the place up, right? No more crap in the ocean, and the air is better? Nothing wrong with that, right?
Well suppose we did all the small reasonable things to cut back on gun deaths and people still got killed by crazy people. It would still be a better world, right? Like the song says, anyway?
The statistics seem to indicate that suicide and accidental discharge are still the leading causes, outside of gang violence, right? Or is that just for young people?
Impossible, repubs for 8 years said Obama was on the verge of taking everyone’s guns, so did the NRA, who was lying?
Don't be obtuse.
If it was politically feasible or popular among the voters, Obama & Co would have tried to eviscerate the Constitution.
Most gun control fanatics are resigned to the fact their glory days are past, otherwise they would be going full force trying to disarm their fellow citizens. Both the Heller and McDonald decisions made it clear once and for all that Americans have the right to own firearms, just as the Founding Fathers had intended for us.
Thats a false and inaccurate interpretation you and many people make. Nowhere in the amendment does it mention a specific gun like a musket. Are you seriously trying to say that the writers of the amendment assumed that they were in a complete and total stalemate in terms of advances of technology and manufacturing? While nobody could imagine the type of weapon produced 200 years from then or from now, they wrote it about the concept of being armed, not the specific tools used to be considered armed. Being well armed implies that you have countermeasures that are adequate to protect you from what the other guy has.
Great comment!
Too bad some people just can't comprehend that.
10-05-2017, 03:07 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilcart
The question is flawed and is used in order to derail any debate on gun control.
Don't be foolish there are plenty of threads about 'gun control.' There is no need to 'derail' anything. And the question can't be flawed - your point is flawed.
Quote:
Gun control is has never been about avoiding on particular attack. It is about reducing them overall with the hopes of one day eliminating them.
And yet while gun control has increased these also have increased.
So basically you implicitly agree that no law/s would have prevented such a crime.
Really all the bold is needed? You know murder of 50 people is a felony? Do you think someone who has planned a murder of 50 people is going to worry about breaking the law by making his semi-auto fire full auto. That's the problem with your logic lots of gun laws already but reality is the ones that should be digging into the background of people who buy guns is broken. The instant background check doesn't even have the correct records many felons have bought guns, and felons who have committed felony's by attempting to buy a gun are not even prosecuted.
His logic included those manufacturing and selling such a device being penalized. Everyone's an honest person until they break the law. Why facilitate that process?
Why occasion or overlook the sale of an item that's sole purpose is designed to bypass the restrictions placed upon fully automatic weapons. That piece of crap serves no other useful purpose whatsoever in light of fully automatic firearms being illegal to all but very specific individuals.
If you didn't think you could influence anyone than why do you waste your time posting? You've just admitted you have family and friends in the US and care about what happens here. So obviously you're trying to have an influence on our policies.
I have no control over what others do, I'm not their keeper. Nor do I want to be.
People use all types of media, the internet, print, radio, TV etc. For the purpose of presenting their points of view because they hope to convince others of their way of thinking. Or to refute the opinions of whom they dis-agree. This has nothing to do with power.
But regardless I still have and always will object to having foreigners interject in our affairs. Family or friends living here or not, it's not your country.
I enjoy debate, I enjoy politic discourse. I don't believe I can influence US policy itself, but I do believe that perhaps, human to human I can make someone question their beliefs or at least understand a different view. I know I've been challenged on CD by others with a different viewpoint or knowledge that I didn't possess.
As for interjecting, again, you are blowing a CD " conversation " way out of portion.
No one will be able to get actually into their heads. That said, you do understand how slowly technological advances happened back then? They wouldn't have the capability of assuming the carnage that guns could do in the 21st century, ESPECIALLY BY ONE PERSON.
Even, so. Do you really believe that your founding fathers if brought back from the dead, and shown today that they woulds say " yup, we really nailed that second amendment " .
Neither you or I need to be in their heads. They were generally considered to be very smart people, very smart (heck even stupid people) knew and know advancements are coming. You think a guy like Ben Franklin who was one part inventor/scientist was unaware of the fact that technology and manufacturing advances were coming?
I like that you start off claiming to know that "no one will be able to get actually into their heads" then you end your argument by making a statement claiming that if they were alive today that you know what would be in their heads.
Logic escapes many of these arguments about guns, this post makes that painfully obvious.
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.
While nobody could imagine the type of weapon produced 200 years from then or from now, they wrote it about the concept of being armed, not the specific tools used to be considered armed. Being well armed implies that you have countermeasures that are adequate to protect you from what the other guy has.
