Bernie Sanders Calls for All Guns Not Used Specifically for Hunting to be Outlawed!

a reply to: Shamrock6

No. Just no. In your warped little world, a child still covered in afterbirth should be handed a gun because they have the right to have one, free of charge. Seriously? What planet are you from? Trollville?

Are they not a citizen? A member of the "people?"
Only if they request it though, I modified my statement if you read the quote.

Earth, actually. I'm just as surprised as you are, to be honest.

How does the government figure out whether you've gotten your free gun or not? In your scenario, they can't. You can't sign for it because what about illiterate people? They can't sign. Requiring a signature would exclude them. What if it's a baby born to non-natives? Can't speak English, can't find an interpreter? Uh oh, your rights have been infringed upon because the dude from the government can't communicate that hey here's your free gun, enjoy!

They don't need to figure it out. You request it, you're given one. No questions asked. Actually, they might have to have gun centers on street corners. But what about the disabled, those who cannot walk? Augh, it gets so complicated...
They would be compelled to find an interpreter, yes. Remember, "limiting access" is a no-no. That's what you told me infringement was, and the second amendment is quite clear on that part: "Shall not be infringed."

If you want to play in a scenario where the government is big enough and taxes are high enough that everybody gets guns for free, as many as they want, all on taxpayers dime then go for it. I'm not coming down to your level so you can beat me with experience.

I'm not quite sure where the Government would get the guns from, honestly, but they'd have to do so somehow. After all, it would be their constitutional duty.

Your whole argument is utterly ludicrous. You've gone from playing devils advocate (for both sides, mind you) to concocting some wildly inaccurate interpretation of what terms mean in a legal sense of the word, and even a common sense meaning.

But... I got my interpretation from you.


You know, I really don't believe this nonsense that I'm spouting. In the sense that I think this is what should be done, at least.
Well, I believe it is technically correct I'm using some rather mind-breaking (if, as I said technically correct) logic to make it work. However, I am using it to illustrate that point that I mentioned it earlier: The gun control argument just 'aint about the Constitution.
I'm clarifying just in case you were getting really annoyed.

Oooo noooo! Burnie wants your boom boom sticks!!!!!!

Have i missed the obligatory gun control thread star baiting ?

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: vjr1113

i never said, you said guns arent dangerous.

Just to clear this up.
Your earlier post
Where you said this...

and to add, its an equivocation fallacy. pools are just as dangerous and guns, therefore guns aren't that dangerous. its just a failure in logic.

I highlighted some of your words in red.

correct you said pools kill more children than guns, making guns as dangerous as pools or more dangerous.

i disagree i think a gun is a lot more dangerous than a pool. thats what my point was.

a reply to: crazyewok

You should read the discussion I had/am having with Shamrock and Vor. I think you'd like it.

a reply to: vjr1113

i disagree i think a gun is a lot more dangerous than a pool. thats what my point was.

Yes, you do seem to think that.... Even after I show you that pools kill more children than guns.
Not sure what keeps you from hating pools as much as you do guns.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: vjr1113

im for guns.

Yes, I think we have all got an idea where you stand on guns.

you dont need an idea of where my stance on guns are, im telling you.

im for guns just not ridiculously easy access to guns that can kill a large group of people easily. anything else you add to this, is a lie.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: vjr1113

i disagree i think a gun is a lot more dangerous than a pool. thats what my point was.

Yes, you do seem to think that.... Even after I show you that pools kill more children than guns.
Not sure what keeps you from hating pools as much as you do guns.

i really hope you understand this because its the last time im going to say it.

pools cant be used to kill a large group of people, easily in public, by a murderer. guns that be acquired easily can kill a large group of people quickly are unnecessary and dangerous.

pools =/= guns, its embarrassing that i have to spell this out. you can disagree but so far you havent brought any persuasive argument, only an equivocation fallacy. and really, take some time and study what that is.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: crazyewok

You should read the discussion I had/am having with Shamrock and Vor. I think you'd like it.

Na I'm just wondering if a certain member turned up for his gun tantrum and meme spamming

originally posted by: vjr1113

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: vjr1113

im for guns.

Yes, I think we have all got an idea where you stand on guns.

you dont need an idea of where my stance on guns are, im telling you.

im for guns just not ridiculously easy access to guns that can kill a large group of people easily. anything else you add to this, is a lie.

Forgive me for not reading the last 20 pages, but I must ask, what is your proposal that will reduce the ease of accessing guns?

a reply to: butcherguy

Using pools is a bit of a weird analogy. May I suggest knives?

Actually, take the number of knives in the US, and divide it by the number of people killed by knives, then take the number of guns in the US, and divide it by the number of people killed by guns, and give us the data. It might be interesting.

If the result for knives ends up being higher, then there really might be a case for "Knife Control".

a reply to: crazyewok

I think both of them did...

Well, assuming we're thinking of the same thing.

a reply to: XTexan

not all guns, only guns that are capable of killing a large number of people quickly. maybe even limiting the number of guns a person can own.

this is the topic im arguing. can we reduce the number of homicides and mass murders and how?

i havent heard any suggestions at all. only that homicides and mass murders arent a problem, even though last year there was a nursing home shot up by terrorists near my town. im not for banning all guns at all. if you have any questions please read my posts, id hate to retype everything again.

also im completely open minded if someone provides an actual argument, im just trying proposing points to reduce homicide and mass murders.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Oooo noooo! Burnie wants your boom boom sticks!!!!!!

Have i missed the obligatory gun control thread star baiting ?

I think the question should be, "Why does Bernie want our boom sticks?"

a reply to: butcherguy

I wonder how many pools were made for the express purpose of maiming and killing,like 4 inch bullets?

What aa illogical desperate analogy.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: crazyewok
Oooo noooo! Burnie wants your boom boom sticks!!!!!!

Have i missed the obligatory gun control thread star baiting ?

I think the question should be, "Why does Bernie want our boom sticks?"

Don't think it matters what old Bernie wants anymore, his chance to the iron throne is gone.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Well, you're probably going to say it's because he wants to strip your freedoms, make America the USSR, impose a strict authoritarian Socialist regime, etc, etc.

I think he wants your boom sticks... Maybe, just maybe, because he actually thinks it would successfully lower the gun violence/gun death rate in America.

a reply to: crazyewok

Actually, his sailing is smoother after Super Tuesday. He wasn't crushed, and the further north you go, the better his chances get.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: DBCowboy

Well, you're probably going to say it's because he wants to strip your freedoms, make America the USSR, impose a strict authoritarian Socialist regime, etc, etc.

Why should I even bother posting if you're going to write my replies?

I think he wants your boom sticks... Maybe, just maybe, because he actually thinks it would successfully lower the gun violence/gun death rate in America.

How will that get guns out of the hands of criminals?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Why should I even bother posting if you're going to write my replies?

To correct me when I'm wrong.
So, was I?

How will that get guns out of the hands of criminals?

In the short term? No idea how effective it will be. Look over what happened with Australia, I guess.
Long term, as the gun concentration goes down, more and more get confiscated after being used in crime it gets harder and harder for criminals to get their hands on them.

Actually, I just had a strange though. Ban the sale of new guns, effective immediately. It will ultimately concentrate the weapons in the hands of the "law abiding" citizens, because they'll never be used for crime and confiscated. (Because, again, the citizens are law-abiding.) It will get harder and harder for criminals to get their hands on weapons over time, but all the citizens will still have their boomsticks left over. (Assuming they didn't try to rob a bank or something. ^_^)
Thoughts?
It could use some refinement, but it's not taking away your rights, at least not as I see it.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

You guys are so silly. I was raised by people that hung people because of the color of their skin so no one here is scary. Calling me names will not shut me up. Besides, we just need to leave the streets and stores to the serial killers clubs also known as gun clubs, for a while. See americans like living like the ME does. Walking targets.