An Argument for The Second Amendment

[Jarlaxle]

There is no good reason why Joker Holmes should be able to walk into a gun store with his orange hair and buy enough weapons to start a small war.

Hair color has nothing to do with guns. Are you intoxicated?

I don't know, if I worked somewhere that we sold things that were potentially dangerous, and some freek with Orange Hair showed up...

I think I'd think twice about selling it to him.

Yeah, orange hair is so terrifying!

Dude, are you REALLY that terrified of your own shadow?

 

[JoeB131]

Hair color has nothing to do with guns. Are you intoxicated?

I don't know, if I worked somewhere that we sold things that were potentially dangerous, and some freek with Orange Hair showed up...

I think I'd think twice about selling it to him.

Yeah, orange hair is so terrifying!

Dude, are you REALLY that terrified of your own shadow?

Wow, guy, that wasn't even a nice try.

Can you honestly take a look at that picture of Holmes and say, "Yup, he looks totally responsible. I'm going to sell him a semi-automatic and a 100 round clip, because he looks like such a fine, upstanding citizen. And it's not like there's a database that's going to tell me that he's being thrown out of school because he's slowly going nuts."

 

[USNavyVet]

I know how to handle guns as well. Most people don't. No civilian really needs one.

The two reasons that the gun nuts give is "We need to defend oursevles from criminals", but for every time a gun is used to kill a criminal, there are 160 cases where they kill a good guy.

The other is "We need to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government" (Usually when their guys don't win elections). Absolutely absurd when the government has tanks, bombs, artillery, warships, etc.

Why do you think civilians don't need guns? Besides, it's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. I have the right to own a gun, and ammunition, and anything else that I want. And your strawman arguments are absurd.

Provided it’s not subject to a reasonable, and Constitutional, restriction – such as a weapon determined to be dangerous and unusual.

Otherwise it’s ignorant idiocy to argue that the Second Amendment enshrines rights that are ‘absolute,’ where any restriction is an ‘infringement.’

All weapons are dangerous. A rolled up newspaper or claw hammer is dangerous. Anyway, I agree that certain weapons do not need to be owned and that would be weapons of mass destruction such as artillery and hand grenades but I am sure there are exceptions on those also. As far as I'm concerned, any firearm that is single shot or semi-automatic is fine. We all know a separate license has to be acquired to purchase and/or own an automatic weapon.

Now we are seeing our idiot politicians going after the ammunition and magazines since they have to pretend they are doing something worthwhile.

 

[USNavyVet]

I don't know, if I worked somewhere that we sold things that were potentially dangerous, and some freek with Orange Hair showed up...

I think I'd think twice about selling it to him.

Yeah, orange hair is so terrifying!

Dude, are you REALLY that terrified of your own shadow?

Wow, guy, that wasn't even a nice try.

Can you honestly take a look at that picture of Holmes and say, "Yup, he looks totally responsible. I'm going to sell him a semi-automatic and a 100 round clip, because he looks like such a fine, upstanding citizen. And it's not like there's a database that's going to tell me that he's being thrown out of school because he's slowly going nuts."

I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but I have to point pout that how a person looks does not and should not determine their state of mind. Never mind. Sorry to everyone for the feeding. Won't happen again.

 

[Jarlaxle]

So the answer is, yes, joey really IS that terrified of his own shadow.

 

[zeke]

Yeah, orange hair is so terrifying!

Dude, are you REALLY that terrified of your own shadow?

Wow, guy, that wasn't even a nice try.

Can you honestly take a look at that picture of Holmes and say, "Yup, he looks totally responsible. I'm going to sell him a semi-automatic and a 100 round clip, because he looks like such a fine, upstanding citizen. And it's not like there's a database that's going to tell me that he's being thrown out of school because he's slowly going nuts."

I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but I have to point pout that how a person looks does not and should not determine their state of mind. Never mind. Sorry to everyone for the feeding. Won't happen again.

See if I got this correct. You are, more than likely, aok with profiling a Muslim coming into this country as a potential terrorost. Profiling a Mexican as a potential illegal. But you want to make sure that no gun shop profiles a gun buyer or refuses to sell a weapon to some crazed looking white guy.

Because; "how a person looks does not and should not determine their state of mind".

WTF??

 

[JoeB131]

[

I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but I have to point pout that how a person looks does not and should not determine their state of mind. Never mind. Sorry to everyone for the feeding. Won't happen again.

Guy, two of my side jobs involve selling things. I can usually pick out the "walk away slowly" customers pretty quickly.

Are you really trying to tell me that the guy who sold Holmes a gun couldn't tell he was whacked out of his mind? More likely, he just didn't care, and that's the problem with the gun industry. It's been completely immunized by congress, they don't care who they sell to.

And frankly, the more scary people with guns means the more guns they can sell to people who are scared. It's right up there with the tobacco industry selling addictive products to kids.

 

[JoeB131]

Wow, guy, that wasn't even a nice try.

Can you honestly take a look at that picture of Holmes and say, "Yup, he looks totally responsible. I'm going to sell him a semi-automatic and a 100 round clip, because he looks like such a fine, upstanding citizen. And it's not like there's a database that's going to tell me that he's being thrown out of school because he's slowly going nuts."

I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but I have to point pout that how a person looks does not and should not determine their state of mind. Never mind. Sorry to everyone for the feeding. Won't happen again.

See if I got this correct. You are, more than likely, aok with profiling a Muslim coming into this country as a potential terrorost. Profiling a Mexican as a potential illegal. But you want to make sure that no gun shop profiles a gun buyer or refuses to sell a weapon to some crazed looking white guy.

Because; "how a person looks does not and should not determine their state of mind".

WTF??

I feel a great disturbance in the Force. Like the heads of a thousand Wingnuts exploding and then going silent.




Best .Response. Ever.

 

[USNavyVet]

Wow, guy, that wasn't even a nice try.

Can you honestly take a look at that picture of Holmes and say, "Yup, he looks totally responsible. I'm going to sell him a semi-automatic and a 100 round clip, because he looks like such a fine, upstanding citizen. And it's not like there's a database that's going to tell me that he's being thrown out of school because he's slowly going nuts."

I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but I have to point pout that how a person looks does not and should not determine their state of mind. Never mind. Sorry to everyone for the feeding. Won't happen again.

See if I got this correct. You are, more than likely, aok with profiling a Muslim coming into this country as a potential terrorost. Profiling a Mexican as a potential illegal. But you want to make sure that no gun shop profiles a gun buyer or refuses to sell a weapon to some crazed looking white guy.

Because; "how a person looks does not and should not determine their state of mind".

WTF??

Swing and a miss on your part.

 

[JoeB131]

Sounds to me like he nailed it.

 

[zeke]

I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but I have to point pout that how a person looks does not and should not determine their state of mind. Never mind. Sorry to everyone for the feeding. Won't happen again.

See if I got this correct. You are, more than likely, aok with profiling a Muslim coming into this country as a potential terrorost. Profiling a Mexican as a potential illegal. But you want to make sure that no gun shop profiles a gun buyer or refuses to sell a weapon to some crazed looking white guy.

Because; "how a person looks does not and should not determine their state of mind".

WTF??

I feel a great disturbance in the Force. Like the heads of a thousand Wingnuts exploding and then going silent.


Best .Response. Ever.

We should be so lucky.

 

[zeke]

I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but I have to point pout that how a person looks does not and should not determine their state of mind. Never mind. Sorry to everyone for the feeding. Won't happen again.

See if I got this correct. You are, more than likely, aok with profiling a Muslim coming into this country as a potential terrorost. Profiling a Mexican as a potential illegal. But you want to make sure that no gun shop profiles a gun buyer or refuses to sell a weapon to some crazed looking white guy.

Because; "how a person looks does not and should not determine their state of mind".

WTF??

Swing and a miss on your part.

Is that all you got for a rebuttal dude? Really? That's it? Weak.

 

[USNavyVet]

See if I got this correct. You are, more than likely, aok with profiling a Muslim coming into this country as a potential terrorost. Profiling a Mexican as a potential illegal. But you want to make sure that no gun shop profiles a gun buyer or refuses to sell a weapon to some crazed looking white guy.

Because; "how a person looks does not and should not determine their state of mind".

WTF??

Swing and a miss on your part.

Is that all you got for a rebuttal dude? Really? That's it? Weak.

That's all a troll like you deserves. Anyway, hair color is a far cry from racial profiling which is why you missed. Think about it. Next you'll want to lock up women based on what they are wearing.

 

[zeke]

Swing and a miss on your part.

Is that all you got for a rebuttal dude? Really? That's it? Weak.

That's all a troll like you deserves. Anyway, hair color is a far cry from racial profiling which is why you missed. Think about it. Next you'll want to lock up women based on what they are wearing.

You are really scrambling now ain't you? But on the "what women wear" thing. I am willing to bet that you, or those that think like you, would be more than willing to profile a woman wearing a burka. Is that true?

And what's with trying to dismiss posters that make your argument look weak by calling them trolls? You just want to communicate with people that think like you? Then wtf you doing here?

 

[Jarlaxle]

[

I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but I have to point pout that how a person looks does not and should not determine their state of mind. Never mind. Sorry to everyone for the feeding. Won't happen again.

Guy, two of my side jobs involve selling things. I can usually pick out the "walk away slowly" customers pretty quickly.

Snake oil doesn't count, junior.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wow, guy, that wasn't even a nice try.

Can you honestly take a look at that picture of Holmes and say, "Yup, he looks totally responsible. I'm going to sell him a semi-automatic and a 100 round clip, because he looks like such a fine, upstanding citizen. And it's not like there's a database that's going to tell me that he's being thrown out of school because he's slowly going nuts."

I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but I have to point pout that how a person looks does not and should not determine their state of mind. Never mind. Sorry to everyone for the feeding. Won't happen again.

See if I got this correct. You are, more than likely, aok with profiling a Muslim coming into this country as a potential terrorost. Profiling a Mexican as a potential illegal. But you want to make sure that no gun shop profiles a gun buyer or refuses to sell a weapon to some crazed looking white guy.

Because; "how a person looks does not and should not determine their state of mind".

Cuts both weays, junior - if you disagree with profiling people because of they way they look, that means you disagree with refusing to sell a gun to someone based on their appearance.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but I have to point pout that how a person looks does not and should not determine their state of mind. Never mind. Sorry to everyone for the feeding. Won't happen again.

Guy, two of my side jobs involve selling things. I can usually pick out the "walk away slowly" customers pretty quickly.

Snake oil doesn't count, junior.

My point exactly. YOu can tell the nutty ones just by looking at them... YOu being a case in point.

 

[Missourian]

Fact-

Only 201 defensive uses of guns recorded by the FBI in 2010.

In that same year, there were 11,000 gun homicides, 16,000 gun suicides and 851 gun accidents.

You don't need a gun. Your reasons for wanting them are silly.

Why do gun control advocates feel the need to twist the truth to make their points?

Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary wildly, depending on the study's population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors.

Higher end estimates by Kleck and Gertz show between 1 to 2.5 million DGUs in the United States each year.[1]:64-65[2][3]

Low end estimates cited by Hemenway show approximately 55,000-80,000 such uses each year.[4][5]

Middle estimates have estimated approximately 1 million DGU incidents in the United States.[1]:65

Defensive gun use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use#cite_note-smith-6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use#cite_note-smith-6​

 

[PaulS1950]

So, at the minimum there are more than 4 times the number of lives saved with a gun than the total number of criminal homicides each year and the middle ground makes it 90 times as many people protected by guns than those killed in illegal homicides each year.

The left is very fond of saying that if it saves just one life it is worth doing - I think we need to train and arm everyone over the age of 21 except those who cannot legally own a gun, of course.

 

[PaulS1950]

Gun violence is not at all complicated and neither is its prevention.
In order to lawfully prevent gun violence you need to remove the violent offenders.
Laws are written in order in order to prosecute the violators not to prevent people from breaking the law.
Speed laws don't prevent speeding, the laws against theft don't prevent theft, and the laws against murder don't prevent murder.
What these laws do accomplish is to give the people the recourse to prosecute and imprison those found guilty.
Nobody wants to remove cars that can go faster than the speed limits to prevent speeding, require homes and businesses to be theft proofed, and nobody wants to remove all the devices that can be used to murder someone.
Licensing, taxing and removing the choice of guns will do nothing to lessen the number of victims in this country any more than it has limited the violent crime in other countries where guns have been removed either partially or completely. In every one of those countries the violent crime has climbed even though "gun" violence drops. That is because when you remove the ability of the 2 million people who use guns each year to prevent violent crime from happening to them you make that many more victims. Guns are not to blame for the violence in this country, and they do prevent it when in the hands of law abiding citizens. There is no reason to pass more gun laws, what you should be concentrating on is the prosecution of violent offenders and especially those who use guns in the commission of a crime, to the fullest extent of the law.
The first, second, fourth, fifth, seventh, ninth and tenth amendments are all under attack by the government that we empowered to protect them. Any representative that believes those rights are within their control either has not read the constitution or is knowingly violating it and the oath of office they swore. The republic which we established cannot be turned into a democracy. Our rights are not for sale or trade and will be defended with our very lives. It seems clear that you believe that you cannot trust an armed citizenry. I want to make it clear that I do not trust a government that attacks my rights.