Relax. I know you aren’t allowed to admit that guns are a dangerous problem.
Dems, quit talkin' guns when your laws/bureaucracy can't stop this latest one that SCREAMS for someone not having a gun.
- Thread starter Orangeclad
- Start date
Guns are an inanimate object.
If you think fewer guns are the solution, when are you going to put a sign up in your yard announcing to criminals that your home is a gun free zone?
In fairness, many are stupid. They like to be told what they should or should not do because they're cucks and because they aren't deep thinkers themselves.
But certainly not all of them fit this mold. Some of them hate America just like you said. These people do the thinking for the cucks.
You don't care nearly as much about other forms of violence because you have a hard on for guns. And then you call others special?
I'm much less of a gun nut than you are an anti-gun nut.
And you aren't allowed to admit that horrible people raised by even worse people are the actual "dangerous problem."
That's not fair. Theo only wants to limit the number and type of guns people can own.
And obviously those two couldn't rob that store with one pistol each.
Have you ever seen me defend criminals? There is no gun violence without criminals just like there is no gun violence without guns.
You think people who establish gun free zones are bad people?
1. We don't really have an epidemic of violent crime with other weapons.
2. There's not a flock of cultists defending other weapons.
Where you guys are wrong.....and I know because I've been there.....is thinking that people who disagree with your opinions are stupid.
You think people on your side are smart because they share your opinion.
Sometimes I worry about you breaking your neck by accident while missing the point on purpose.
I know your point. You want to totally absolve guns of any blame for gun violence. You're afraid that, if you admit guns play any part, that will provide the impetus for someone to take your guns away.
It's like someone who is a rabid fan who refuses to admit anything negative about their team.
You feel like you can't give an inch because of the 'slippery slope'.
1. And you'd be more comfortable if we did. So long as it's not guns.
2. You keep calling people cultists. I'll assure you that you are far more into the anti-gun cult than I'll ever be into the pro-gun cult.
You've literally never made a cogent argument for what we should do about guns. You just say they're bad and people who disagree with you are cultists who are hypnotized by "the gun companies." You say crap like, maybe we should only allow 2 guns per person or other nonsensical crap.
As far as I can tell you just enjoy being obtuse. And why shouldn't you? You excel at it.
What an ignorant response. I'm not a bit worried about more guns into the hands of responsible/sane people who aren't likely to shoot up a bunch of people. I am worried about guns in the hands of mentally ill/insane people who do wish to do harm to others. I don't hear gun advocates saying mentally ill people should have guns.
The point of the thread start, which you clearly don't get, is that if we couldn’t keep guns away from this guy, whose mental illness was screaming volumes, how are we ever gonna get guns out of the hands of mentally ill people.
And since you are obviously the smartest guy in the room, what is your solution to what you call the gun problem. It's not a gun problem. It's a dangerous people problem who have guns.
I know you do...that's why I said I worry about you breaking your neck.
And of course I don't blame the guns. I also don't blame cheeseburgers for heart disease.
I think we should do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people. I think we can do a pretty good job of that. We have a better chance of doing that well than we have of collecting the 3-4 hundred million guns in this country. And according to your plan, we wouldn't even do that because you're allowing two-ish guns per person.
1. You do not know that. In fact in London, islamic terrirists used vans to run over people where guns were not so readily available….so….SWING AND A MISS for you.
2. There are not a flock of cultists ANYWHERE but in your wimpy nightmares, son. You are left in life without the ability properly feel the duty to protect your loved ones. To me, VERY unmanly, actually a bit cowardly. I hope this never bites you in your azz.
1. We'd have to cross that bridge when we came to it. Gun violence is here now.
2. I'm not anti-gun. I'm fine with responsible people being able to bear arms. I would say, if you refuse to admit anything bad about guns, you're in a cult.
I haven't formulated a plan to reduce the number of guns because I don't have to. Ban some, tax others, put limits on ownership, put people with illegal guns in prison and keep them there.....all of that is fine with me.
I've never said we should limit people to two guns.....I said you could make a good argument that it's constitutional.
Mama said I just like to argue.
Do you think that the number of guns we have in America is problematic when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people?
We just need to do "something," right? Brilliant.
What would I need to say about guns to help you see otherwise? Do you need me to talk sh1t about them or something? If I did that, it would convince you that I'm not in a gun cult? 😂 That "the gun companies" haven't hypnotized me?
Guns in the wrong hands are an absolutely frightful thing. I recognize the potential of a gun in such a circumstance. If you need me to single out the gun itself, I'm sorry, I just can't do that...because it makes no effing sense. If it did I promise you that I would.
Mama was right. Even when you don't have a plan or much of a point, you'll argue until you are blue in the face.
Not all mentally ill people are dangerous. The problem there is how to legally and fairly sort them out. The current standard is did not work in this situation, but I'm not about to demand that everyone with a diagnosed mental illness be stripped of their second amendment rights. That's Red Flag laws all over again.
I certainly do. The sheer number of guns creates a few issues, of course. Namely they can never be controlled by the government in this country. We literally have no idea how many, or what types, are out there.
The bigger issue imho is the absolute unwillingness to separate the crazy people and the criminals from the guns. I think we could do that tomorrow if we had the will. We don't.
Even then, on occasion, a crazy person or a criminal would slip through the cracks and get their hands on a gun. The Titanic wasn't unsinkable and there's never been a horse that couldn't be ridden so surely there would be cracks in this as well. But as of today, we aren't even making an effort.
BTW, I've always been a bit of planner. If I do this, what will be the result? How will I need to react to that result?
So if we did somehow snatch up all the guns, fixing that issue, and then SOMEHOW criminals and crazy people continued killing others, what's next? Do we then ban edged weapons like they did in London? And then blunt force objects? No more Drano or rat poisoning I'm assuming?
You've heard this all before. Yes, guns are deadly. The root cause here is human nature, however. This is obvious and deep down I think you recognize that.
Our best bet is to manage the criminals and the psychos. I think we could put a huge dent in this if we had the willpower. We can certainly manage people better than we could ever manage innumerable deadly objects.
It's "not fair" that people who have seizures or severe diabetes can't drive...and yet we don't let them drive. I think it's entirely reasonable to keep people with severe mental illnesses away from guns.
I've disarmed a few truly crazy people in my life and it's easily one of the scariest things I've ever had to do.
If you have a family member, say your brother, that you know is suffering from some sort of mental illness because, gee, he's been in a mental facility for 2 weeks and he's talking about hearing voices in his head and you know he has guns and his ability with guns, would you like to be able to have the ability to have those guns taken away from him because you are so concerned? Yes or No?
Same thing applies to people who are terrified of an inanimate object like a gun.
The left uses fear mongering because they know when people are terrified, they literally cannot think straight.
Nope. If you eliminated the guns, the criminal activity continues.
You keep focusing on gun violence. Why aren't you focusing on violence? Is violence acceptable to you as long as a gun isn't involved?
You live in a world that doesn’t exist.
While we’re getting rid of all of the guns, let’s just end all violence, mental illness, cancer, aids, pandemics and natural disasters.
I would imagine your plan for these societal challenges are the same as gun violence.
That's what this is all about. His terror of an inanimate object.
That's not what I asked, but ok, do you support that mechanism in place in Florida?
HELL no, the problem is...and you would know this IF you knew ANYTHING about this subject is....the laws ALREADY on the book are not being enforced. As I said MANY times....my guns in my gun safe NEVER move on their own. I have tested it. It takes bad people to make guns do bad things. The 100% problem with your PATHETIC argument is...you want to penalize law abiding people for some idiot prosecutors NOT doing their jobs. That 100% means you have some democrat juice's flowing in your veins.
RESOUNDING YES. When you take away innocent, law abiding peoples rights away because of your fear of inanimate objects...HELL YES..you are supporting criminals
Absolutely. This is a failure of government to do its job. Just like the government failed to prevent a prohibited from purchasing a firearm that resulted in a massacre at a black church in South Carolina.
If I understand correctly, this individual should have been a prohibited person.
Maine has a “yellow flag” law instead of the “red flag” (huge compromise in a major hunting state) and in the two years since it was passed it’s been used just over 80 times to remove guns from people who the law defined as “in crisis”. Now it seems it may have been useless in this case since he might have been more in the US Military arena and some (obvious hindsight) stupid classified privacy laws prevented action? I hope more details come out.
One of the deceased tried to stop him with a knife. Never has the old saying “never bring a knife to a gunfight” been more sadly apropo.
One of the deceased tried to stop him with a knife. Never has the old saying “never bring a knife to a gunfight” been more sadly apropo.
