Wasn't this your same excuse when it came to election fraud? The liberals in the media never reported it, so it didn't happen?
Seems you have limited news coverage rocking on the front porch. Helps explain the John Kasich support, I suppose.
In before the gun confiscation NUTS.....
- Thread starter Capt Ron 1
- Start date
Seems you have limited news coverage rocking on the front porch. Helps explain the John Kasich support, I suppose.
Ahem...
You've been shown examples, many times in fact. Your logic..."Why don't we hear about it more often?"
That is disjointed logic. How many times would you need to hear about it before it's real? What's the magic number Theo?
@GatorTheo
I know this is funny to you, but federal funding helps cash-strapped schools...cutting funding for schools with hunting and archery programs will reduce the proliferation of these programs in schools.
On the other hand, I doubt anything related to Pride sees a dime cut.
"Earlier this year, the Biden administration blocked key federal funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) for schools with hunting and archery programs. This federal funding cut would negatively impact millions of American students who participate in those hunting and archery programs."
I've given this some more thought. You're saying that two guns is probably ok...but more than two is a problem.
Why is that third gun so dangerous? How does limiting (see infringing) a person to two guns solve the "problem" as you see it?
Surely if we're going to go after the Constitutional rights of Americans, there's a point to it, right? What's the point?
No. That is not what I'm saying.
The 2nd amendment says govt. will not infringe on your right to bear arms.
If you have two guns, you are bearing arms.
So, someone could pass a law that you could only have two guns and it wouldn't be infringing on your right to bear arms (because you could still bear arms without infringement).
Most dems just want to regulate guns into glorified BB guns requiring 2 week waits and extensive background checks from what I can tell...a few on the fringe want them banned altogether.
Positions very similar to yours actually.
This 'controversy' has already been settled, by your own earlier admission.
Limiting me to two arms is in fact infringing my right to bear arms on the one hand (what if I want more than two guns?), but more importantly it's preventing the formation of a well regulated militia required for the security of a free state.
Why does only half of the 2A register with you?
It's only funny because it upsets gun fanatics. I have no issues with hunting or archery programs.
1. If you have two guns, are you bearing arms?
2. How many guns do you need to form a well regulated militia?
Note the emotional investment that @GatorTheo has in this issue. That gives away he's not a moderate.
Moderates moderate their opinions. It's literally in the name. The pick a side, usually in the center of an issue, but are completely open to moving or changing their position. The main point is they have no elevated level of emotional investment in their stances.
That's the exact opposite of theo. No poster here is more terrified of guns than he is. No poster here is more adamant about Trump being an asshole. Whenever election fraud is mentioned, theo immediately says 'when is this going to amount to something?' or 'Twitter isn't news, this isn't valid'.
Anyone that disagrees with him is in a cult. He says while exhibiting cultish behavior himself.
He checks off every box for being a derranged lib, and none of the boxes for being a moderate. @armbar73 is a moderate, and he's nothing like theo. He rarely posts, and when he does he gets in, states his position (always in the middle of the issue), and then leaves the thread.
Theo adopts the extremist position and lives there for weeks. He will still be in this thread a month from now claiming that the Constitution says you can only buy 2 guns, and if you point out he said that, he claims he never said that and YOU are the one in a cult.
He's insane. Most derranged libs are.
"But I voted for Trump. TWICE! I say mean things about Biden! Doesn't that fool you into thinking I'm really a moderate?"
We truly have the worst.
So, again, what would be the point of such a limitation (infringement)?
Spite? Because you just admitted that it wouldn't help. It wouldn't fix anything.
It does make for a decent troll I suppose.
Those are positions very similar to mine? Are you sure you're not just making that up?
The point might be reducing the number of guns in circulation.
I just admitted it wouldn't help? Are you sure I said that?
Your position is certainly more similar to that than our own. That was probably his point.
You mean reducing the number of guns in circulation AMONG LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS.
The people that have accounted for 0% of gun violence since the invention of guns.
How is that a logical stance to take if your goal is to reduce gun violence?
It's a completely logical stance to take if your goal is to empower criminals at the expense of law-abiding citizens.
Of course. If I'm not a gung-ho gun defender, I must be an anti-gun extremist.
So legal owners of guns have never engaged in illegal gun violence? They've never had their guns used by other people for illegal purposes?
Did the gun companies tell you that?
If you were a moderate, you probably would have kept your opinion to yourself. Or stated it once and left the thread.
Instead, this thread is now 6 months old, and likely a third of the posts on 33 pages come from you.
Nothing extremist about that behavior. At all.
About 75 million Americans admit to owning a gun. I believe that it's fair to say that many more have guns but don't admit it because a) it's NOYFB b) they're suspicious of those who would ask the question.
Also, if you limited me to 2 guns then all of the sudden my wife would also own 2. I could probably have others who would own 2 for me as well.
So I ask you, how would this reduce the number of guns in circulation?
Second question, how many guns does it require for a person to commit an act of violence which you seem to be trying to avoid?
You won't admit it because you are a VERY stubborn person but Theo, it is your logic that is entirely disjointed...and you've still never owned up to the fact that limiting equals infringement which the Constitution specifically forbids.
Your position has been destroyed as thoroughly as any position I've ever seen on Rivals.
Nope. You clearly have a problem understanding simple definitions. Like law-abiding citizens, moderates, etc.
Wait, what? You want to deny law-abiding citizens their Constitutional rights, because you are terrified of what criminals MIGHT do?
Nothing extremist about that position. Let's stop selling medicine at the pharmacy, because there's a chance a drug addict could commit fraud and get medicine he doesn't have a prescription for.
Totally moderate view to take. You definitely aren't crazy.
And oh yea, and a giant PS...who is going to collect the extra guns already in circulation? It's reasonable to assume we have ~400 million today.
If we're going to reduce that number, who is going to do it? And how will they do it? Will you volunteer to help confiscate them?
Touché...you didn't. I made the logical assumption and I assumed that you had as well. I underestimated how stubborn you are.
Limiting people to two guns when it only takes one to kill will not resolve the issue that you're hoping it will.
Classic troll tactics. Adopts a position for pages, then when you restate his adopted position to him, he claims he never said that. Hell earlier nail posted evidence that debunked his 'the Constitution says you can't buy more than 2 guns' troll attempt, and theo even admitted to it. But this morning he's back acting like the idea is again open for debate.
We need more moderate posters here. We have enough trolls like theo.
That third gun = murder
@GatorTheo feels like the guns are the problem, not the people who fire them into crowds.
A logical person would want ALL of the guns in the hands of law-abiding, peaceful people. That person would realize limiting safe gun owners from owning guns does nothing to prevent gun crime...by definition a person who commits crimes doesn't follow the law.
I'll never understand how this is confusing.
The above is hyperbole and it's not what I said. I said your position was more similar. Take a breath.
Again, simply a case of poor reading skills.
I've never said criminals aren't part of the problem. We agree about the criminal's part in the gun violence equation.
We differ on the gun's part in the gun violence equation.
No, I'm doing my best to piece together what your stance is based on what you've said.
So far you've said two key things:
1) Only allowing 2 firearms is ok, because you're "bearing arms" (luckily they made it plural I guess). I've repeatedly cited (2) bolt action .22 cal rifles in my hypotheticals and you've never balked at that assertion.
2) You think every gun owner should be required to check into some state or federal authority and register all of their guns, presumably keeping only two IF, and only IF, the aforementioned authorities say it's ok for them to keep them. I have to assume the rest are remanded to the authorities.
So yea, so far you want to nearly disarm only law-abiding gun owners, you're ok with the state or federal gov't eliminating large firearm collections, and you certainly seem ok with only allowing a tiny modicum of available firepower or magazine capacity (or mags at all for that matter).
You're hard left on "gun control", which is why you refuse to give us any more of "your plan to reduce gun violence". My guess is it would be a harder turn to the left.
I just want to know your plan to get the guns out of the hands of those who would choose to do harm to others with them.
All you've proposed are ways to get law-abiding citizens to turn in their guns.
I have a two-part plan.
One part is stemming the flood of guns making them less accessible. (Sorry gun companies!)
The other part is putting criminals in jail and keeping them there. No excuses. (Sorry democrats!)
Additionally we differ on the following...
- It only takes one gun to commit an act of violence
- Limiting is infringement...it's literally in the definition of the word infringe..and the BOR in the constitution guarantees that the right won't be infringed in the 2nd just like "Congress shall make no law" re: the 1st
- Limiting people to 2 guns moving forward does absolutely nothing about the ~400 million in circulation today. That means you're unconstitutional act would NOT serve any purpose whatsoever
- Given all of the above, even if you ignore it all and have ZF2G, short of raiding every home, dwelling, shed and cave in this country, you have no hope of eliminating those guns. Maybe you could confiscate 50 or 100 million of them??? But then people could still go out and buy 2...so the numbers in circulation will not have reduced. In fact they may well increase.
Again, I'm not proposing a limit of two guns, I'm saying a limit of two would not violate the second amendment.
Limiting is infringement.
But limiting to two is not infringing on the right to bear arms.
Riiiiight...
You're not proposing anything then are you?
Just an old man shaking his fist at the clouds?
...despite the definition of the word infringe including the word limit???
This is like arguing math...or the color blue.
What if the amendment mentions the formation of a well regulated militia?
Most militias restrict their members to two firearms?
"Shall not be infringed." Another way of saying that is...
"Shall not be limited."
Only allowing two is limiting...and it's also infringing. This isn't an opinion. This is fact.
Sooo infringe the right to bear arms/protect yourself and then wait for criminals to use that against law abiding citizens so you can throw away the key?
That seems fair.
Gotta break some eggs to make an omelet?
Liberals like the change the meaning of words. It's core to the ideology.
Last edited:
Clinton tried it with the word "is"...so I guess ignoring the word limit in the definition of the word infringe is less ridiculous.
It's important to note that "less ridiculous" is still quite ridiculous.
