I would like to have a intelligent discussion about the horrible shooting that occurred today in Boulder, Co. No politics allowed.
- Thread starter Freddie.B.Cocky
- Start date
- Status
Another post that makes no sense. Nothing I've said implies that either. You're the coward that fears personal liberty and would tremble with delight in having the government redact swaths of the Constitution. What a useful idiot.
Now you’re stuck in this weird scenario where you’ve argued you’re a responsible gun owner but you’ve also argued you’re not a responsible gun owner. It’s also impossible for you to connect those two beliefs because they’re blatantly contradictory. But you also don’t want to admit you’re wrong on either statement.
so you’re just stuck and not sure what to say.
Having supportive communities and a social network is critical. There are many reasons why that is more rare these days. I may be old school, but the way we have built cities after WWII has created more car-centric places that don't encourage civic-minded and collective attitudes. Just my theory.
Last edited:
Serious question...but you avoid it because you have no response
So you think the 2nd Amendment is only a collective right, and not an individual right?
The right to bear arms is a fugue description of having a gun. So basically since it's everyone's "right" then we all should just line up at gun stores and have a gun handed to you. Does it give a minimum age requirement in the Constitution?
I never said I'm a gun owner, so on top of being a tyrant, you're also a liar.
You answered your own question with the last sentence. We already have a lot of laws on the books. People still kill. If someone wanted to kill they’d still do it if they couldn’t buy an AR rifle. Two Glock pistols will do the same or better job.
I'm not going to waste my time on the "impossible" regarding an assault weapons ban simply because I don't see one happening again. But, a universal background check? Hell, yes. We need that. How anyone can be against that is beyond my understanding. Would that prevent all mass slaughters and other violent crimes? Of course not. Would it help prevent some. I believe it would.
No offense, but does the outcome of the investigation mean anything in the grand scheme of things?
And do you really think the Founders would embrace a citizenry that could have easy access to weapons of mass destruction? It's a valid question. There needs to be a line.
Being behind on child support is a crime and I didn't say take their guns I said purchase a gun. If you can't afford to pay child support you can't afford a $800 gun.
What if the mom is stealing that money from child support and buying drugs? Still pay her?
lol so when you were being a tough guy you were going to defend yourself with your hands?
The Founders wanted to be sure they preserved the right to keep and bear arms as they established their new sovereign government. Americans asserted a natural right to defend themselves and their property against all threats, including tyranny of any kind, foreign or domestic. The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights was included to reflect the concerns of many citizens in a number of states. This lesson explores the origins of this amendment. Basically it's gives us the right to defend our property and ourselves. Of course back in the day many people used pick forks as weapons of choice. Never spells out guns...which is why we now have laws with age requirements.
If people are going to kill people regardless to the access of guns, why does the US dominate in this category?
I think the bottom line is it's so easy to acquire a gun in the US. I have a gun but know some people who probably shouldn't be anywhere near a gun.
Again, I never said I'm a tough guy, but if you want to come try to take something from me you can find out for yourself what I'll do with my hands. Don't get mad at me because I pointed out you're a liar. Your dishonesty is a you problem, not a me problem.
You're the type of hollow, craven lowlife that would say the 1st Amendment only prevents Congress from prohibiting free speech, but it is okay for a state to do so and jail you if you say anything controversial.
The Effects of Waiting Periods
Analysis of the impact of waiting periods on gun-related outcomes in the United States
www.rand.org
Studies show forcing people to wait to get access in guns (gun control) does reduce gun violence homicide and suicide.
Surprise, the longer people have to wait - the more they consider shooting people is not a good idea
The British government and army was not a militia. The entire poorly structured argument is based on a misrepresentation of what the militia was.
Ha. My favorite constitution scholar, Penn Gillette. He’s a smart guy, but even his words have a “slight of hand.” Even the most conservative justices on the Supreme Court (the ones that hold on tightly to original intent) have said that some regulations are acceptable. That some “infringement” is ok under different circumstances. But they couldn’t if not for the beginning of the sentence.
We're talking about buying a gun. That goes the same for the loser buying drugs and not paying child support with the money too. What you buy with your child support is between you and your neglected kids but not paying is a crime and should be included in a criminal background check. JMO
It was your stupid post I was responding to. Where you claim self defense is breaking the law
Nah, per uscwatson21 the jews would've been breaking the law if they had shot back at the Nazis.
The right to bear arms is guaranteed, but we must get guns away from people doing us harm, the question is how.
Not from what I have seen. Can you provide a link that shows a country using an AR-15 during or preparing for a war?
Does the military use AR 15?
Answer (1 of 40): Yes they do. Despite what other people may have written. Armalite originally developed the AR15 back in 1959. The original AR15 was designed as a select fire, air cooled, gas blowback operated assault rifle based on it’s “bigger brother” the AR10. In 1959 however Armalite sol...
There are 120 guns PER person in the united states lol and we still cant figure out why we have so many gun murders and suicides
You said "Any past criminal history should disqualify is my view on that, including being behind on such things as child support etc". That's what I was reacting to. Like, once behind on child support you could never buy one. But I understand what you mean. I think it's unconstitutional though.
Why would a well regulated militia need 120 guns per person, that seems like a pretty inefficient militia to me
Not from what I have seen. Can you provide a link that shows a country using an AR-15 during or preparing for a war?
Does the military use AR 15?
Answer (1 of 40): Yes they do. Despite what other people may have written. Armalite originally developed the AR15 back in 1959. The original AR15 was designed as a select fire, air cooled, gas blowback operated assault rifle based on it’s “bigger brother” the AR10. In 1959 however Armalite sol...www.quora.com
Are you intentionally being obtuse?
- Status
