Are the illogical pro-gun arguments intentionally illogical??????

a reply to: TrueBrit

Highly suspect? Like... armed teachers who are supposed to shoot their own students? It makes me wonder why people are so eager to defend the 2nd, when everything else on that fricken piece of paper is mackle already.
Looks like a strawman to me, especially when the debate focuses on the control of assault rifles and not on banning guns completely.

We regulate everything depending on how dangerous it is

Reminds me of another ongoing debate here in Germany. We have trucks crashing into traffic jams on our Autobahn on a daily basis, regardless of the automatic break systems on the market. And people will continue to die for the profits of our trucking companies, who reject to install those systems in older trucks as well.
It's predictable, highly moronic and all about the money.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Just stop it.

You're not getting anyone's firearms without a fight.

With him that means he definitely won't be getting anyone's firearms.

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: JoshuaCox

You should look in a mirror to find illogical statements.

There has never been any real threat of an American prohibition on firearms..

Let me count the house bills.

We regulate everything depending on how dangerous it is..

Except cars and trucks, fast food, big pharma and let us not forget some of your statesmen.

Or is it just unintentionally the way it all worked out??

If you want things to change ... and you truly believe that the rest of We The People agree with you then ...

Have a Constitutional Convention ... and see the Second Amendment grow.

P

Only you do regulate cars, trucks, fast food & pharmaceuticals.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Most teachers when faced w death or death of those they are in charge of , I'm sure will eliminate the threat.....history of those that are armed bares that out....

1) Murderers do not care about gun laws.

2) Telling people that there are crazy people running around killing people, therefore we should all hand over our guns is about as illogical as gets.

Just keep everyone fighting while we pump their kids full of mind destroying medications!

originally posted by: c2oden
It is simple. The second amendment.

2nd,4th,5th,6th,8th,9th,10th, and 14th amendments.

All in play, but the usual suspects don't care.

a reply to: JinMI

However the SCOTUS has decided that the 2a doesn't qualify to weapons of war. Which is also why we see civilian AR's attempted to be grouped in with them even though they are not.

I DARE them to name any military in the world that carries the CIVILIAN AR.



Their idiots.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

From personal experience people are usually far too slow to the draw. When your fight or flight instincts kick in you're considering your own life.

It takes training to overcome basic human instincts.

As I gather, most teachers are overwhelmed within their occupation, I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to learn how to handle hostile situations and how to protect life whilst eliminating threats.

There's plenty of videos circulating of shootings, watch the ones where a shooter got shot... Usually an armed person doesn't have time to defend themselves, when they've successfully defended themselves it was usually down to the error of the person provoking the situation.

Last I checked, mass-murderers don't come around and declare they are going to kill everyone in 5 minutes. They just start hurting people. No warning and barely enough time to get your # together.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

What's illogical about saying I'm a criminal before I've committed a crime. I have a constitutional right to own a gun and just because CNN tells you gun owners are the problem doesn't make it true.

Free speech is hate speech and now the 2nd amendment makes killers kill.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I know..

No one will..

Y’all just continue enjoying that rape fantasy and keep telling your self your just so so tough...

a reply to: JDmOKI

Because cnn never said gun owners are the problem..

CNN is not a sentient being...

CNN has some hosts that have x opinion and some have Y opinion..

No one even remotely thinks a ban is even possible..


No one ever has...

It is the exact equivalent of “Shiria law is comming to America!”

Remember when conservatives ran around for a year swearing it was comming too. making themselves look like Yahoo in the process. ???

a reply to: craterman

Then why do we have laws at all??

Theives don’t care about theft laws.. so we shouldn’t worry about theft laws..

Child molestors don’t care about child molestation laws, so why worry about them either??


That’s my whole point..

The logic is just SOOOOOO bad it just screams to be addressed..


Logic applies to everything equally.. which means you can apply it to any situation .

As I said..


The American can people will never stand for it and no law enforcement body would do it..

There is no need for toddler logic..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

There is so much wrong with this, I don't even have the time to cover everything.

Actually, it's going to bug me if I don't.

Assault rifle is not a real term for a weapon. The term "assault" in front of any weapon, just means it "looks scary" to the person describing it. Taking it a step further, they are not weapons of war either. Those are held by the military, and have 3 round burst and full auto fire (not the civilian weapons).

Number two, the current legislation is aimed at:

The bill prohibits the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine, as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, the legislation bans the sale, transfer, production, and importation of semi-automatic shotguns with features such as a pistol grip or detachable stock, and ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds.

So your statement that it's only looking to ban the sale of new "Assault rifles" (sic) is completely wrong.

Source: www.washingtonexaminer.com...

Third, a lot of things that are dangerous are regulated...... Such as firearms. Ya know, with our current gun laws. Most explosives are banned, automatic weapons are banned, armor piercing rounds are banned in most instances, etc.

Fourth, you claim the liberal argument has the high ground to the "retarded conservative" points. So....... The fact that Democrats want to ban the sale, manufacture and transfer of semi automatic pistols, rifles, shotguns (making it that no one can even privately sell or transfer any sort of semi auto firearm) is.... not..... a...... gun.... ban....? Now who sounds like they have the illogical argument............

Now to the last point.........

So is that cycle intentionally scripted by those planning on using a nonissue as their primary reason to “vote for me??”

..... Are you serious? Shootings were steadily declining prior to the 1990 gun free zone act. Since then, school shootings have quadrupled, with 98% of all shootings now happening within a "gun free zone" (whether local or federally implemented). The Democrats helped create this issue. Now, they plan on "resolving" the issue. This is the cycle of illogical action you're claiming the other side is taking. Take a non issue, Have everyone parade around saying "vote for me and I'll fix it!" Then, they pass legislation to make the issue worse, then continue parading around with the "vote for me and I'll fix it!" sentiment, even though they contributed to the issue in the first place.

The whole shooting issue was a non issue to begin with. Once the 1990 legislation was passed, it BECAME an issue, and has only gotten worse from there.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

What crack are you smoking? Legislators have been throwing around statements like "we need to look at what they've done in places like Australia as to what we do here".

I mean you can't honestly think that there isn't a threat on America's ability to keep and bear arms. Besides, what you are proposing is the opposite direction to where we should be going.

We need more liberty, not less. Not a single gun control measure will do ANYTHING to minimize, stop or even slow down what has been happening.

Jaden

a reply to: dothedew

You are forgetting the grandfather clause.....


The same grandfather clause that was in place during the 1995 ban..

The fact you don’t know that just shows how dishonest the conservative propaganda is..

Any ban IS ONLY on the new manufacturer of that type of firearm..

That is what a grandfather clause is.

Any sold before the law starts remain perfectly legal..

EVERY INCH of the “They want me to turn my guns in” is laughable..


MOST IMPORTANTLY!!!

What warm bodies would be willing to do the house to house fighting the kind of prohibition you are taking about would require???


The military wouldn’t.. countless generals have said so..

The police wouldn’t.. countless sheriffs and such have already said do..

We haven’t invented android terminators yet, so who actually does the disarming??



There is no one..

It is and has always been a fake issue..

People agree on everything except weather we should still be adding more assault rifles to the pile.


Actually it became an issue in 1967 when Ronald Regan passed the Mumford act attempting to disarm the black panthers because they were lining up with rifles across the street from any police action they saw where a cop was interacting with a black person..


Radiolab did a history of the second amendment movement. Featuring how the legal system only views the second ament as referring to militias until 2008...

That there they decided that citizens had a right to own firearms, but the fed/states decide how many and what kind.


Heller vs DC.


I understand the regular public being propagandized , but the people doing the propaganda know the real legal standing..


The violent crime rate has constantly fallen. We are just more civilized than our predecessors. There are less people starving in the streets and thus less crime.

a reply to: Masterjaden

That doesn’t mean a ban and confiscation..

That is literally the propaganda whores taking someone saying one thing and applying “but I know what they really mean”. On the end..


MOST IMPORTANTLY!!!

Who would actually enforce confiscation??

The military?? Nope..

The police?? Nope...


There is no one who would..


People make the hypothetical argument that if a genie made all the guns vanish. We would be safer..


Well ain’t no F’n genies so that is mental masterbation..

The logic is simple in my view.

Good guys (not law enforcement) in the USA have guns legally for the most part.

Bad guys in the USA have guns legally and illegally.

If you limit the good guys owning guns or take their guns away, bad guys don't follow laws, they will still have guns.

Then you have everywhere becoming like Chicago with rampant violent crime on the rise because bad guys have no fear of the good guys.

Also I would point out the mass stabbings here in China as an example of my logic, we don't have guns in China but bad guys get knives and go whacko at schools and train stations killing quite a number of people, into the dozens in a few cases.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

The tenuous nature of any attempted confiscation does not belie the reality that there are people working toward that end.

There are people trying to think of procedural steps that can be taken to have a successful confiscation, do not think otherwise.

We cannot be lax on this, and we cannot allow the baby steps approach to it to come to fruition.

There ARE people who would enforce or attempt to enforce confiscation. Do you really think that supporting open homosexuality in the military is to support gays? No, it's an attempt to change the demographics of the military toward the left. I know people who have retired because of the push for a PC military. They are the same people that would never go along with a confiscation attempt.

Jaden

a reply to: Willtell

The principle is the lethal level of the weapon.

if its the lethality more people were beat to death with feet and fists in 2016 than were killed by all rifles & shotguns in the same year...

656 by hands and feet vs. 636 by rifles & shotguns.

now handguns on the other hand killed 7,150...why are we not talking about banning those?

ucr.fbi.gov...

or when do we restrict fists? oh thats right, murder is already illegal...