Here we go again. More circumventing the 2nd by the Admin

a reply to: introvert

slippery slope.

Support more gun laws.
There is your slippery slope.

None of the gun laws have accomplished anything.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: xuenchen

I see this argument a lot. Don't get me wrong, I fully support the 2nd amendment. I grew up around guns and learned how to shoot at an early age. I owned, and still own guns (Though they're at my parents' house currently, since I live abroad). But every time I see the argument "They'll get guns anyway so why bother" it kinda makes me wonder why people say that. Yeah, some people will do anything to get a gun. But why shouldn't there be some common sense measures in place to at least make it more difficult for a deranged person to obtain a weapon? For every road block a person might face, that's another opportunity for them to think it over, and maybe decide that's not what they really want.

By definition, if they are capable of that level of assessment, they are not "deranged" or "unstable".

I understand the whole "Obama's trying to take your guns away" thing, but until the jackbooted thugs come knocking at your door to take your guns away, I think the fear is unfounded.

At that point, it's already too late. You can sit and wait and be reactive if you like, but that is a losing battle. I prefer to be proactive, and stop them before they even get on the road to my den.

a reply to: neo96

X commits a crime on Y how is Z responsible ?

This is what is wrong with these laws. We would already be up in arms if we convict someone on intent alone. This is worst, we are assuming people are guilty of something that they may not even have an intent to do. Just because we are afraid of them.

I say until they have a proven history of violent tendency, their rights should not be taken away. Every time, we are creating any laws that take away any rights no matter how small we should ask ourselves why? and if it is necessary at all?

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

Ok, so how can you logically compare voter fraud to gun crimes in order to makes some point about regulation or laws?

What is your point?

Because you have already stated that you do not back ID for voting.
Why would you support laws being broken when it simply a matter of checking a valid ID before someone votes?

'Oh, no one dies, so it doesn't matter.' That's your retort.
Well guess what, it does matter.

because its only unconstitutional when when its a law THEY dont like........like voter ID laws

Are you ready to have your mind blown?

I agree with Voter ID laws.

AND I agree with measures to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and the mentally unfit.

What am I?

Are you aware of how easy it is to be labelled as both?

I was almost charged with domestic abuse at one point with a physical altercation with my ex wife, had it not been for the in home camera I had, they would have taken her testimony as gospel and i would now have domestic abuse on my record.....

Again.....things are not that cut and dry

So if things aren't so cut and dry, why not have a national discussion about exactly what kinds of mental disorders, what SORTS of domestic violence would preclude someone from having a firearm? Why not start a discussion on how we can keep guns from the hands of the unfit, instead of just saying "Screw it, arm everyone, let it sort itself out"?

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I don't know. I am sure that some doc out there would. As I am sure that some out there wouldn't.
See the issue.

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: xuenchen

I see this argument a lot. Don't get me wrong, I fully support the 2nd amendment. I grew up around guns and learned how to shoot at an early age. I owned, and still own guns (Though they're at my parents' house currently, since I live abroad). But every time I see the argument "They'll get guns anyway so why bother" it kinda makes me wonder why people say that. Yeah, some people will do anything to get a gun. But why shouldn't there be some common sense measures in place to at least make it more difficult for a deranged person to obtain a weapon? For every road block a person might face, that's another opportunity for them to think it over, and maybe decide that's not what they really want.

By definition, if they are capable of that level of assessment, they are not "deranged" or "unstable".

I understand the whole "Obama's trying to take your guns away" thing, but until the jackbooted thugs come knocking at your door to take your guns away, I think the fear is unfounded.

At that point, it's already too late. You can sit and wait and be reactive if you like, but that is a losing battle. I prefer to be proactive, and stop them before they even get on the road to my den.

Even the most deranged of psychopaths have moments of lucidity.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: macman

So, basically, this would require the ATF to have everybody's medical records, right?

Does everybody still like the forced and irreversible collection of their medical records by the federal government?

This is just one of many possible abuses we can expect to endure before we come to our senses.

Simple solution - don't generate any medical records to be collected. Boycott doctors and "Obamacare".

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I don't know. I am sure that some doc out there would. As I am sure that some out there wouldn't.
See the issue.

This is precisely why "second opinions" are a thing, you know. If you don't agree with the assessment of one doctor, you see another for a second opinion.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Even the most deranged of psychopaths have moments of lucidity.

Except when it comes to congressman.

The most dangerous psychopaths this country has.

People actually DO want tougher gun laws. Poll after poll confirms that. But the all-powerful, (that is, big-speanding), NRA prevents that from happening, for now.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

Ok, so how can you logically compare voter fraud to gun crimes in order to makes some point about regulation or laws?

What is your point?

Because you have already stated that you do not back ID for voting.
Why would you support laws being broken when it simply a matter of checking a valid ID before someone votes?

'Oh, no one dies, so it doesn't matter.' That's your retort.
Well guess what, it does matter.

because its only unconstitutional when when its a law THEY dont like........like voter ID laws

Are you ready to have your mind blown?

I agree with Voter ID laws.

AND I agree with measures to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and the mentally unfit.

What am I?

Are you aware of how easy it is to be labelled as both?

I was almost charged with domestic abuse at one point with a physical altercation with my ex wife, had it not been for the in home camera I had, they would have taken her testimony as gospel and i would now have domestic abuse on my record.....

Again.....things are not that cut and dry

So if things aren't so cut and dry, why not have a national discussion about exactly what kinds of mental disorders, what SORTS of domestic violence would preclude someone from having a firearm? Why not start a discussion on how we can keep guns from the hands of the unfit, instead of just saying "Screw it, arm everyone, let it sort itself out"?

Because, this......

So how many vets with PTSD and other mental diagnoses' will have their arms taken from them?



Sounds like a nice plan to remove a vastly experienced amount of fighters from any future civil war.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: introvert

slippery slope.

Support more gun laws.
There is your slippery slope.

I'm not supporting this blindly. I open to the discussion and I want to see what they have planned. That leaves me in a position to support or reject depending on the contents. No slippery slope there.

None of the gun laws have accomplished anything.

NONE of the gun laws have accomplished anything? Really? Do you wish to retract that statement before someone completely obliterates that ridiculous statement?

Would you support the repeal of all gun laws and have arms available to anyone and everyone regardless of their criminal record?

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: xuenchen

I see this argument a lot. Don't get me wrong, I fully support the 2nd amendment. I grew up around guns and learned how to shoot at an early age. I owned, and still own guns (Though they're at my parents' house currently, since I live abroad). But every time I see the argument "They'll get guns anyway so why bother" it kinda makes me wonder why people say that. Yeah, some people will do anything to get a gun. But why shouldn't there be some common sense measures in place to at least make it more difficult for a deranged person to obtain a weapon? For every road block a person might face, that's another opportunity for them to think it over, and maybe decide that's not what they really want.

By definition, if they are capable of that level of assessment, they are not "deranged" or "unstable".

I understand the whole "Obama's trying to take your guns away" thing, but until the jackbooted thugs come knocking at your door to take your guns away, I think the fear is unfounded.

At that point, it's already too late. You can sit and wait and be reactive if you like, but that is a losing battle. I prefer to be proactive, and stop them before they even get on the road to my den.

Even the most deranged of psychopaths have moments of lucidity.

Haven't dealt with many dangerous lunatics, I see. You seem to be trusting their "moments of lucidity" to save your bacon during their vast bouts of irrationality. I don't see that working out well for you, but it's your life to bet on it, not mine.

By the same yardstick, every person on Earth has moments of irrationality. Your argument would ban all guns for everyone.

originally posted by: TownCryer
People actually DO want tougher gun laws. Poll after poll confirms that. But the all-powerful, (that is, big-speanding), NRA prevents that from happening, for now.

The only people who want tougher gun laws are the people who have never bought one.

Oh and the anti gunners created the NRA.

Gun regulation the cause/ NRA effect.

Regulation creates lobbyist's that pay politicians' BIG $$$.

Rinse, and repeat.

a reply to: introvert

Do you wish to retract that statement before someone completely obliterates that ridiculous statement?

Please, please feel free to 'obliterate'.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
So how many vets with PTSD and other mental diagnoses' will have their arms taken from them?



Sounds like a nice plan to remove a vastly experienced amount of fighters from any future civil war.

It won't come to a civil war, but if it did, there would be guns laying around for the taking by anyone willing to pick one up. There always is, no matter how stout the laws to prevent it.

originally posted by: introvert

NONE of the gun laws have accomplished anything? Really? Do you wish to retract that statement before someone completely obliterates that ridiculous statement?

Would you support the repeal of all gun laws and have arms available to anyone and everyone regardless of their criminal record?

I don't know about Butcherguy, but I would support that. The laws mean nothing - guns (not just "arms", but specifically GUNS) already ARE available to anyone, regardless of their criminal record. I lived in the hood for years - you're not going to fool me about that.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

Ok, so how can you logically compare voter fraud to gun crimes in order to makes some point about regulation or laws?

What is your point?

Because you have already stated that you do not back ID for voting.
Why would you support laws being broken when it simply a matter of checking a valid ID before someone votes?

'Oh, no one dies, so it doesn't matter.' That's your retort.
Well guess what, it does matter.

because its only unconstitutional when when its a law THEY dont like........like voter ID laws

Are you ready to have your mind blown?

I agree with Voter ID laws.

AND I agree with measures to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and the mentally unfit.

What am I?

Are you aware of how easy it is to be labelled as both?

I was almost charged with domestic abuse at one point with a physical altercation with my ex wife, had it not been for the in home camera I had, they would have taken her testimony as gospel and i would now have domestic abuse on my record.....

Again.....things are not that cut and dry

So if things aren't so cut and dry, why not have a national discussion about exactly what kinds of mental disorders, what SORTS of domestic violence would preclude someone from having a firearm? Why not start a discussion on how we can keep guns from the hands of the unfit, instead of just saying "Screw it, arm everyone, let it sort itself out"?

Because, this......

That entire comic is a slippery slope fallacy.

For one, the U.S. already some of the most LAX laws on the books for firearms of any 1st world nation, and they will continue to have this for the foreseeable future. Secondly, as I've said in several posts on this very thread, if the government ACTUALLY tried to disarm the U.S. population, there would be an immediate civil war, and 90% of the military would turn on the government in support of it's citizens. You can claim "gradual this" "slippery slope that", but regardless of how many regulations are put in place, the government can't REDUCE the amount of armed people in country unless they go out and start confiscating firearms. When that happens, civil war. Easy as that.

You're free to express your dismay at your perceived attack by the government on your 2nd amendment rights, but truth be told, unless they come for your guns, they aren't infringing on jack.

a reply to: intrepid
The ownership of those are to the person that committed the crime. Very simple really.