Yes, you should be controlled. We have been over this. But you are proving a point. Criminals, just like those with dangerous extremist views, don’t listen to regulation of rights.
Thanks for helping out.
In before the gun confiscation NUTS.....
- Thread starter Capt Ron 1
- Start date
Thanks for helping out.
No, just cars and planes. We control them because they are potentially dangerous. Do you think controlling them is wrong because they're inanimate objects?
Are those things constitutionally guaranteed?
You could make the argument that bombs are but we haven't.
I was being a smartass...as in "assault rifles," which isn't actually a thing, of course.
We're going around in a circle.
It looks like your belief is.....it's OK to control dangerous 'inanimate' objects as long as they're not protected by the constitution....in that case, we set common sense precautions aside.
If I'm not saying something smartass.....I'm thinking it.
I think Theo believes that we can give up some constitutional guarantees and that won't affect the others. The others will always remain same....because of common sense.
And yet he's mentioned the fact that ground has already been given on the 2nd as reason for why it could be done again...which, of course, is exactly what some other lunatic would say to attack his other constitutionally guaranteed rights.
It's amazing...an absolute sight to behold.
For a while now actually.
I never said it was OK. I said it was understandable.
Can I live with control over something that isn't constitutionally protected? Yes, I can. Again, I'm a constitutionalist. You aren't, clearly.
In this case, since it's constitutionally guaranteed, we focus on the lunatic, the drug addict, the alcoholic and those who have been convicted of violent crimes.
And I don't think your opinion should override the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
And remember, it's common sense IYO.
Our trolls complaining that we don't take their troll attempts seriously is some of the best entertainment here.
It's equal parts short-sightedness and selfishness. He just knows that he is terrified of an inanimate object and he just KNOWS in his bones if we got rid of all the guns, all gun violence ends.
He doesn't care how we get there, just that we get there. His terror toward guns has totally compromised his ability to reason. He KNOWS that limiting or removing one Constitutional right will open the door to limit others, but he doesn't care. He thinks the end result of getting rid of the inanimate object that haunts him is worth it.
Again, equal parts short-sightedness and selfishness.
who said your are on the side of common sense?
Common sense tells me I don’t kill a rabbit with a 300 or 30-6. But for a moose, it’s appropriate
Common sense tells me I should carry a shotgun and/or a sidearm in bear country.
Common sense tells me I shouldn’t hunt a moose with a .22, but for rabbits it’s appropriate.
Common sense tells me I don’t bring much to the table with a .38 pistol as part of a militia.
Common sense tells me….not being infringed is the same as not being limited.
Common sense tells me a pistol isn’t appropriate for hunting birds, but a shotgun would be a good choice.
Common sense tells me a shotgun or pistol are fantastic for self defense at home.
Common sense tells me a pistol is a logical choice for protection in public.
Common sense tells me an AR is a good starting point for a Militia.
Common sense tells me, that you lack common sense.
Which is what theo claims he wants to do, yet he steers the convo AWAY from the criminals every chance he gets, and puts it back on targeting the law-abiding citizens.
Who have accounted for 0% of gun violence in the history of the planet. His terror toward an inanimate object has totally compromised his mental ability to reason.
I'll even allow that we as gun owners have to do a better job of securing our firearms. Stop leaving them in your cars overnight. Stop allowing your lunatic brother or uncle to have access to your guns.
And, imho, we need a more comprehensive and accessible list of FPP (firearm prohibited people) so that they cannot obtain them and so that they are dealt with more easily when we catch them.
The national list would be almost entirely made up from each state's information...but since it would be in effect throughout the country, inter-state, the Feds would need to maintain it.
There should also be a way to get your name off that list if a judge so orders it. See due process of law.
This is why people like Theo become victims, and when it is too late they wish they would have listened.
Okay. Here's common sense, regulation for citizens who obey the laws and carry firearms is not the population that is committing crimes with firearms. It makes the most sense to punish the offenders much like a match can't be held responsible for arson, it was the arsonist, not the means used to start the fire.
So you should be able to run red lights as long as you don’t cause any accidents?
Who's common sense? You see...the people we voted for make these laws, and people like you do not get to second guess them(You outed yourself as a democrat here) You either get them changed, or FOLLOW them. Those are the choices. The ONLY choices...unless you want to get arrested.
Of course not. Someone was asking why law abiding citizens should have to accept restrictions.
It took 200+ years to ratify the 27th amendment, and that amendment secured salary changes for Congress.
Constitutional amendments are extremely difficult to ratify and are impossible in the polarized climate we exist in today.
No, they weren't, they were saying the weapons are immaterial it is the people with mental illnesses that are the problem, not the weapons. Why are there shootings at places like schools and Churches? Because they are known for not being heavily armed, there is a reason why bank robberies are down and shootings at gun-free zones are up. A coward will always go the route of least resistance.
Drivers that run red lights are no longer law-abiding citizens.
No, but it is another bad troll attempt.
That's right and it's unfair. Why should law abiding drivers be punished with driving restrictions because other people cause accidents?
Why turn good drivers into criminals?
True, and the vehicle they are operating is not the culprit. The operator is the criminal, not the vehicle.
And your car analogy sucks...cars are registered and taxed not because they are dangerous, but because it takes gov't funded infrastructure to have a place to drive them (at least that's the stated reason, in reality taxes and fees paid on cars fund alot more than roads).
And bombs, guns, knives, etc are all already regulated to one degree or another.
Your proposals go WAY beyond regulation.
Why are good drivers criminals?
Don't speed, don't run red lights, don't drive drunk, and you aren't a criminal.
Don't leave loaded firearms where kids can get them, don't rob banks with guns....and you aren't a criminal.
Thank you. I quite literally chuckled aloud when I read his analogy. He didn't think that one through.
So far he's not come up with one good analogy...and he's stopped responding to anyone who points that out
No, he did not, he's playing checkers while we are playing chess here.
You can go back 1480 posts...and this is true. He has brought ZERO facts to this thread. So it is really kind of a waste of time to let him troll everyone.
Everyone in a right wing echo chamber agrees we should crack down on criminals. That makes for boring conversation.....unless you just enjoy patting each other on the back.
It's more fun to talk about topics on which we differ.....like guns and Trump.
OK, maybe I should say topics on which I differ.
