I hate to be a stickler but this was a violation and you've earned one demerit. As we both know, double-secret probation is next.
In before the gun confiscation NUTS.....
- Thread starter Capt Ron 1
- Start date
I hate to be a stickler but this was a violation and you've earned one demerit. As we both know, double-secret probation is next.
You are the THICKEST headed person I have ever encountered...or not very bright. ( I hope for your sake it is the former) How many times have we told you it is about following the laws of our land, the original founding Fathers document?
One of Theo's people who hate guns brought aq billy club to a gun fight
www.foxnews.com
Would-be burglars armed with 'billy club' pick the wrong farmer to try to rob: 'I will shoot'
Washington state farmer Sam Krautscheid was forced to use his firearm to thwart two suspected burglars and held them at gunpoint until deputies arrived.
One of Theo's people who hate guns brought aq billy club to a gun fight
Would-be burglars armed with 'billy club' pick the wrong farmer to try to rob: 'I will shoot'
Washington state farmer Sam Krautscheid was forced to use his firearm to thwart two suspected burglars and held them at gunpoint until deputies arrived.
He had to load the gun and considered warning shots? Yikes...I'm glad it worked out for him.
Agree. I don’t have an issue with the death penalty but do with the timing. The way you laid it out earlier is the way it should work.
At 20-30 years, it’s a waste of tax dollars and not a deterrent.
Last edited:
Only one? @GatorTheo says he needs to buy at least one more to be bearing arms.
I've said I wasn't sure about that. I know 'arms' seems plural but perhaps someone with only one gun can be considered to be bearing arms.
I found this to be an interesting twist:
"Under the Supreme Court's standard in District of Columbia v. Heller, knives are Second Amendment “arms” because they are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” including self-defense."
Knives are also arms...and access to them must not be infringed either. That means you can't limit them, by law, in case you are confused.
Yes you're trolling...but you're also illogically twisting words as a means to an end. You are sick of the violence from the violent but you've decided to demonize the tool instead of the demons.
It's a half-baked plan. It won't work because your views are entirely unconstitutional but it also won't work because it's short-sighted and ignores human nature.
We control other dangerous tools, right? Bombs, cars, planes......it's common sense to control them, right?
Is it 'trolling' when you all repeatedly say I don't hold criminals responsible for their behavior?
That's the compromise. What you're suggesting is incrementalism...the answer is no.
In some cases it is. But you are clearly attempting to place a significant amount of the blame on the tool.
We aren't trolling you when we say that we don't have a gun problem or knife, bomb, car or plane problem. We have a people problem. Most of it is due to the breakdown of family...but not all of it. We also have a mental health problem.
What's the compromise?
We control dangerous tools because it makes sense but we set sense aside when it comes to guns.
Are you not hearing me by accident or is it on purpose?
The items you listed (and others) are the compromise. I responded directly to that part of your post. There's no chance that my response was unclear or that you were confused by it.
It's the compromise on guaranteed rights. You're suggesting incrementalism...to the surprise of no one. People like you are always going to try.
FTR, if it weren't for people like you, there wouldn't be a need for the NRA. But there will always be gun Karen's so there will always be an NRA.
I'm not a member btw. I'm a crappy cultist I suppose.
I'm trying to understand what you're getting at.
So, the compromise is, we use common sense on dangerous tools except for guns?
I admit I don't know what you mean with 'incrementalism'. Is that like 'slippery slope'? You ban one gun and the next step is banning all guns?
Had a little lib in him. That could have been ugly for him
ZERO problem with the death penalty. The people who were directly responsible for 9/11 should be dead...not in prison. When you plan out and take someones life it needs to be strongly considered. Not for revenge, but to protect society
You aren't dumb so you're trolling.
What does incrementalism mean? You know perfectly well. If you don't like that word we can try gradualism.
And you can see incrementalism in everything that we do as a society...or at least the attempt. Guns would be different? Why? It's already happened with guns of course.
You only want X today. Your great-great gun Karen will want and demand Y tomorrow. The answer is no.
OK, I understand what you mean by 'incrementalism'.....it's the slippery slope argument.
Now, what do you mean about 'compromise'? Sounds to me like your saying it would make common sense to control guns except for them being protected by the constitution.
You do know that guns ARE controlled? I have to ask because I have to consider the source.
Which amendment is it that protects my right to bear automobiles?
I'm saying that there has already been a compromise. And, unsurprisingly, people like yourself are coming back for more.
In an ironic twist, you laugh at the notion when we mention incrementalism...as though we're being ridiculous and paranoid, despite the fact that it's exactly what you're doing now. Even if we give yet more ground and give up more constitutionally protected freedoms, people like yourself will eventually come back for more.
I'm not saying that is your plan (maybe though???) but rather that is what will happen and always happens.
So you agree.....it's common sense to control guns but they're protected by the constitution so we can't.
Honestly, why do you need a knife bigger or sharper than a butter knife?
"Are you going to fight the US military with your Bowie knife?"
😂
I mean, why would you need more than 2 knives? You can use a butter knife to filet fish, to butter bread, to dress a dear, cut boxes, steak, turkey, etc.
Bearing arms. So in reality, we could just have 2 butter knives, guns can be limited to zero, and we are bearing arms with our infringed butter knives.
So, 'compromise' doesn't have anything to do with the way we handle other dangerous tools it's about how we do have some restrictions on guns.
I think the Dodge Dart and Magnum, the Buick LeSabre along with the AMC Javelin would be protected, no???
Not me...I'd just say it's unsurprising.
It's unsurprising that some people would ask to be protected from an inanimate object rather than the lunatic who might wield it.
I'd say demanding protection from the lunatic is common sense.
The compromise was giving some ground on a constitutionally protected freedom. We've done that already.
In fact, the founders believed gun rights to be so important that they listed it 2nd...before protecting the sanctity of your home, unreasonable searches and seizures, due process of law, speedy trials, cruel and unusual punishment, unspecified rights and states rights. Only free speech took precedent.
Wow, right?
Is it common sense to control bombs, deadly chemicals, planes, cars, etc.?
It is common sense to control Theos speech. Why? Because it’s dangerous speech. It’s speech that is extremist and harmful.
With that said, your 2 post infringed speech has not only been reached, but surpassed by a large margin. Please turn yourself into the authorities.
So no dangerous items should be controlled? We should be able to have bombs, poison, etc. because they're inanimate? There should be no licensing for cars or planes because they cause no danger if they just sit there?
Do mean like assault cars and assault planes?
