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

a reply to: TrueBrit

Ummm...I know what you mean...but my bow staff might be a little awkward to carry around...however...I draw the line on no pocket knife........I guess I just got in the habit as a kid...My brothers and I would hike everywhere...usually with fishing poles and always with our trusty pocket knives...cleaning and skinning the fish creekside and cooking them over a fire with wild leeks...

Anyways...I'm glad you took it as the good natured ribbing it was meant to be...sometimes it's a challenge trying to voice such across the digital divide...



YouSir

a reply to: nenothtu

Seems to me the Real Winner in Obamanations Executive Fiat is yet Again , Insurance Companies . First Obama Care , Now this . The Idea of " Liability Insurance " for Everything Under the Sun is a Big Wet Dream for the Conglomerate of Corporations that Completely Control American Politics Since 2001 . We are All Being HAD.............

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: neo96

What about the rights of the victims? You KNOW there's going to be more soon. What about their rights?

What about the rights of those 5,000 or so homicide victims killed by something other than a firearm every year in the US?

What are we going to ban to help them?

Maybe if we make murder illegal, it will fix everything.

No logic whatsoever from the anti-gun side...

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: MrSpad

I would like to see required safety classes, back ground checks and gun owners held legally responsible for failing to safety handle or secure their weapons.

Gun ownership has never been 'conditional'.

To say that would require you completely ignore all of American History. As we know, your interpretation of the Constitution means nothing. That is up to the Courts and the Courts have had many very different interpretation of the Second and all the others as well through out history. They call it a living document because it is open to the social and moral changes of the nation that change the interpretation of it. It is the main reason it has remained relevant and not become nothing more than a historical documents. I find that the people who often cite the Constitution seem to know the least about it and it history.

a reply to: MrSpad

You have a point.

The courts may soon redefine marriage.

Obviously, many would want to redefine Amendments.

Personally, I'm tired with arguing with the gun-grabbing anti-freedom crowd.

Change the law. "Reinterpret" to your hearts content.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: nenothtu

Seems to me the Real Winner in Obamanations Executive Fiat is yet Again , Insurance Companies . First Obama Care , Now this . The Idea of " Liability Insurance " for Everything Under the Sun is a Big Wet Dream for the Conglomerate of Corporations that Completely Control American Politics Since 2001 . We are All Being HAD.............

Yes, we are - or at least most of us are. I've often wondered if Obama has stock in insurance companies, or if the payoff was a lump sum.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: SubTruth

originally posted by: MoreBeer
And the bootlickers will be along to praise King Obama for taking their rights simply because he is a progressive and doing "whats right".

Progressives value idealism over reality and this is why they float in the air like a paper bag. It is also the reason many progressives are young and or sketchy older people. Young people have not lived long enough to gain the wisdom that only comes with age and the older people make the same mistakes over and over again.

Really? Do a Google image search of "Sandy Hook funerals" and tell me if that isn't reality.

Please propose a new law that would have stopped Sandy Hook.

The guns belonged to Adam Lanza's mother. Will you change the law so that family members of people with mental health issues can't have guns? What about their neighbors and friends?

How do you propose to identify the folks who are likely to snap one day and murder a bunch of elementary school students so they can be added to the list of prohibited persons? What behaviors do they show that differ from all the other non-violent folks with the same mental disorder?

Every time there's a shooting, people have a knee-jerk reaction and want something done to prevent it from happening again. In the real world, there's absolutely nothing that can be done to prevent another Sandy Hook. If someone is that deranged, they will find a way to commit the act. The worst school attack in history was carried out with explosives.

A rational person looks at the attacks in the grand scheme of things. They're terrible tragedies, yes, but there is no law or restriction that will keep someone with that mindset from succeeding. The overall murder rate is much lower now than it has been in the last several decades and gun laws have been greatly relaxed since the year 2000. More guns may not necessarily make the country safer but it certainly hasn't made the country a more dangerous place to live.

a reply to: beezzer

Remember how simple it was when we were in school and being taught that words had definitions that meant something? Now it seems that was wrong. A word can means precisely whatever someone wants it to mean to achieve the desired effect upon the world around them.

Ergo, we were taught about blue and what it was, but if I would prefer the sky be purple, I am sure I could mount a campaign these days to have the definition of blue changed to mean something closer to purple to suit myself.

a reply to: Answer

OK, you want to go. If you read the thread you would know that I was pointing out that victims of gun crime are a "reality". Something that has been shown over many pages that does't matter to gun advocate. Really excellent material for the future.

originally posted by: Answer

Please propose a new law that would have stopped Sandy Hook.

The guns belonged to Adam Lanza's mother. Will you change the law so that family members of people with mental health issues can't have guns? What about their neighbors and friends?

You answered your own question, Answer.

a reply to: ketsuko

We will be redefined to death.

Remember when Biden said that paying taxes was "patriotic"?

Gun ownership may soon be "redefined" as a mental illness.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Answer

OK, you want to go. If you read the thread you would know that I was pointing out that victims of gun crime are a "reality". Something that has been shown over many pages that does't matter to gun advocate. Really excellent material for the future.

So you don't want to respond to anything I stated. Got it.

Keep trying to tug at the heart strings while ignoring the facts pertaining to lower overall crime and murder rates. That's typical. When reality disagrees with your opinion, ignore reality.

Some people like to base their argument on emotional nonsense and some prefer to focus on facts. I don't see you pushing for something to be done about all the other causes of death. Why is that? Because you actually like some of those things?

"I don't approve of your lifestyle so I believe it should be banned." Is that it?

If the only thing you knew about cars was that they kill 33,000 people in the US every year, you'd be pushing for a ban on them too. You only see the negative side of firearms because A) that's all the media will show you and B) you don't care about the other side.

a reply to: Answer

Who's being emotional here?

I'm not going to repeat myself again for those that don't want to deal with "reality".

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Answer

Who's being emotional here?

I'm not going to repeat myself again for those that don't want to deal with "reality".

Noted.

You being quiet is probably the best way for you to handle this discussion.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Answer

Who's being emotional here?

I'm not going to repeat myself again for those that don't want to deal with "reality".

Noted.

You being quiet is probably the best way for you to handle this discussion.

Not quite, already said. And you don't want to see it and I won't repeat it. Read back.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

The whole point which most people miss, is that if you can make guns sufficiently difficult to get then you raise the street value of them. I'm not saying that's what we should do, but most Americans only look at it from the perspective of what's currently normal here where guns are cheap and plentiful. If guns are no longer cheap and plentiful then it become cost prohibitive to for example, pick up a gun and rob a gas station. When that's the case, then no most criminals won't have guns.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Answer

Who's being emotional here?

I'm not going to repeat myself again for those that don't want to deal with "reality".

Noted.

You being quiet is probably the best way for you to handle this discussion.

Not quite, already said. And you don't want to see it and I won't repeat it. Read back.

Oh no, I get what you're trying to say... that the victims are the "reality" of the situation.

I'm telling you that they're the only statistic focused on by the anti-gun crowd because it elicits an emotional response. There are many sides to reality, not just what you pick and choose. Focusing on a single statistic is hardly the entire "reality" of a situation.

Since you are from Canada where guns are very popular but the murder rate is very low, I would expect you to realize better than most that guns and access to guns aren't the problem... but I guess I'm expecting too much.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

The whole point which most people miss, is that if you can make guns sufficiently difficult to get then you raise the street value of them. I'm not saying that's what we should do, but most Americans only look at it from the perspective of what's currently normal here where guns are cheap and plentiful. If guns are no longer cheap and plentiful then it become cost prohibitive to for example, pick up a gun and rob a gas station. When that's the case, then no most criminals won't have guns.

Criminals generally get guns from other criminals. They don't walk into a gun store and buy one off the shelf with the necessary paperwork and background check.

There are enough guns currently "on the street" that if you banned the private sale of firearms tomorrow and none were ever made again, there would still be enough available to arm every criminal who wanted one.

a reply to: intrepid

Applying intrepid logic:

Automobiles cause around 33,000 deaths a year in the U.S. That's the reality of the situation. Why would you advocate for something so deadly? Why do you value this inanimate object over human life? You ignore the automobile deaths because it goes against your "pro-car" agenda!

Of course you sit there and try to say that cars are used all the time without someone dying but you're just ignoring the facts. 33,000 people killed every year!!! Indiscriminate killing!!! So many children dead!!! How can you still want a car!!???!??

My feels are hurting so much!!!!

a reply to: Aazadan

Because that has worked out so, so well with drugs. And it worked out so, so well with alcohol. The Chinese will happily make all the cheap arms the cartels can smuggle into the US along with all their other illicit goods.