Examples of why you can't tust Liberals with "reasonable" gun control

[Flash]

How about we adhere to the Bill of Rights?

Hey it's circular logic. Where in the bill of rights does it promise you a weapon with the killing capability of today's modern weapons. I missed that part. Post it up.

Nothing "modern" was in the Bill of Rights" so according to you we should trash the whole, thing right?

Lets get rid of those Mormons because the Mormon religion did not exist when the Bill of Rights were created so therefore they should not have the right to practice their religion.

By the way, in Heller the supreme court said you couldn't ban classes of firearms.

It would be interesting to see if that stupid Connecticut proposal becomes law that essentially bans all semi automatics to see if it hold up on appeal.

 

[Flash]

People are allowed to own guns. Imagine that.

Yea, but people are not allowed to own every single type of weapon produced. Imagine that.

Irrelevant. Guns are here and they're not going away. Here's an idea, if you don't like guns, don't buy any.

He says he has them to protect himself from all us gun nuts.

It sounds like he wants to own them but doesn't want anybody else to have them. Typical Liberal.

 

[Flash]

The Supreme Court has upheld the traditional understanding of the 2nd Amendment.

The Supreme Court gave in to the bullshit from the NRA. Just like so many others have given in to the assholes with the guns. No news there.

Today's Supreme Court justices have no more knowledge than you or I about what the Founders were thinking when they wrote that poorly worded passage that has caused nothing but tragedy and mis understanding and conflict.

Guarantee the founding fathers would change the passage if they had the chance for a re write. If you NRA types didn't shoot them first.

Actually Justice Scalia did quite a bit of research on what our Founding Fathers believed in and referenced it in the Heller case.

 

[The Rabbi]

Some nut shoots 6 people and the lefties want a law banning magazines with more than 5 bullets. Some nut shoots 7 people and they want a ban on magazines with more than 6 bullets. Shoot 10 and the left responds with a ban of 10 bullet magazines. Always chasing the irrelevant circumstances of gun violence instead of addressing the real causes.

Would you rather see a ban on gun sales altogether?

The far left wants that, the side you support and voted for twice..

The rampant possession of firearms in this country has taken, and continues to take a terrible toll in lives. Now, unless you can come up with a viable solution that addresses that toll, I will continue to hold that we need to get rid of them altogether. But hey, that's just me.

How do you propose to get rid of them alttogether? Never mind the Constitutional aspect that makes it impossible.

Shut down the manufacturing facilities. Confiscate all the guns, and turn them into electric cars.

Yeah, that'll work.
Dunce. There are 300M guns in circulation. At least. No one knows exactly how many. In most places you would trigger full scale civil war doing house to house searches.
All of that is unconstitutional and unlawful. But you dont care.

 

[Flash]

They didn't envision gay marriage, or anchor babies, yet libs can find the justification for those things in the Constitution.

That is like saying that if the Founding Fathers would have known what a massive welfare state the US would become they never would have given the Federal government the ability to redistribute wealth and income.

 

[Edgetho]

Examples of why you can't tust Liberals with "reasonable" gun control

dewd, not to be a smartass, but what exactly CAN you trust a liberal with?

Seriously

 

[Flash]

Examples of why you can't tust Liberals with "reasonable" gun control

dewd, not to be a smartass, but what exactly CAN you trust a liberal with?

Seriously

Excellent point!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Examples of why you can't tust Liberals with "reasonable" gun control"

Actually this is an example of a thread that fails as both a straw man and hasty generalization fallacy.

Well done.

 

[The Rabbi]

"Examples of why you can't tust Liberals with "reasonable" gun control"

Actually this is an example of a thread that fails as both a straw man and hasty generalization fallacy.

Well done.

How is it a straw man? Because no one thinks you can trust liberals to begin with?
It isnt a generalization. The commie states that instituted gun control after New Town have only gotten worse, and threaten to get even worse.
Fortunately they've been punished as the gun makers in their states relocated to better environments. Thanks, MD for sending Beretta's jobs down to my home state.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How about we adhere to the Bill of Rights?

Hey it's circular logic. Where in the bill of rights does it promise you a weapon with the killing capability of today's modern weapons. I missed that part. Post it up.

Nothing "modern" was in the Bill of Rights" so according to you we should trash the whole, thing right?

Lets get rid of those Mormons because the Mormon religion did not exist when the Bill of Rights were created so therefore they should not have the right to practice their religion.

By the way, in Heller the supreme court said you couldn't ban classes of firearms.

It would be interesting to see if that stupid Connecticut proposal becomes law that essentially bans all semi automatics to see if it hold up on appeal.

The proposal isn't going to become law, it's idiocy to believe otherwise. It's also idiocy to infer that the commission is 'representative' of all 'liberals,' as it is not, hence the thread fails as a hasty generalization fallacy.

Just as it would be a fallacy to assume that all conservatives are as ignorant as you.

 

[Flash]

"Examples of why you can't tust Liberals with "reasonable" gun control"

Actually this is an example of a thread that fails as both a straw man and hasty generalization fallacy.

Well done.

It was those Libtard idiots in Connecticut that came up with a ridiculous recommendation so how is exposing that a hasty generalization?

The same kind of Libtard idiots could not be trusted with reasonable gun control in New York because they took firearms away from a veteran because he saw a doctor about insomnia. They did it under the SAFE Act, which is the same kind of stupidity those clowns in Connecticut are proposing.

 

[zeke]

Hey flash, you and your gun nutter buddies on here ready to load up and head to Conn to give them liberals a taste of lead? Or you just gonna bad mouth them on the 'Net all day?

 

[chikenwing]

How about we adhere to the Bill of Rights?

Hey it's circular logic. Where in the bill of rights does it promise you a weapon with the killing capability of today's modern weapons. I missed that part. Post it up.

Nothing "modern" was in the Bill of Rights" so according to you we should trash the whole, thing right?

Lets get rid of those Mormons because the Mormon religion did not exist when the Bill of Rights were created so therefore they should not have the right to practice their religion.

By the way, in Heller the supreme court said you couldn't ban classes of firearms.

It would be interesting to see if that stupid Connecticut proposal becomes law that essentially bans all semi automatics to see if it hold up on appeal.

The proposal isn't going to become law, it's idiocy to believe otherwise. It's also idiocy to infer that the commission is 'representative' of all 'liberals,' as it is not, hence the thread fails as a hasty generalization fallacy.

Just as it would be a fallacy to assume that all conservatives are as ignorant as you.

Well your generalized retort,is no different than what your bitch-en about,its safe to say the vast majority of liberals are in favor of more gun miscontrol,where are the vast majority of Cons are not,pissing for distance is so childish

 

[The Rabbi]

How about we adhere to the Bill of Rights?

Hey it's circular logic. Where in the bill of rights does it promise you a weapon with the killing capability of today's modern weapons. I missed that part. Post it up.

Nothing "modern" was in the Bill of Rights" so according to you we should trash the whole, thing right?

Lets get rid of those Mormons because the Mormon religion did not exist when the Bill of Rights were created so therefore they should not have the right to practice their religion.

By the way, in Heller the supreme court said you couldn't ban classes of firearms.

It would be interesting to see if that stupid Connecticut proposal becomes law that essentially bans all semi automatics to see if it hold up on appeal.

The proposal isn't going to become law, it's idiocy to believe otherwise. It's also idiocy to infer that the commission is 'representative' of all 'liberals,' as it is not, hence the thread fails as a hasty generalization fallacy.

Just as it would be a fallacy to assume that all conservatives are as ignorant as you.

How many conservatives are in favor of gun control?

 

[zeke]

How many conservatives are in favor of gun control?

Only the smart one. Don't worry. You won't qualify.

 

[Flash]

Hey flash, you and your gun nutter buddies on here ready to load up and head to Conn to give them liberals a taste of lead? Or you just gonna bad mouth them on the 'Net all day?

Bad mouth them on the net mostly.

Those idiots in Connecticut voted for bad government by electing Liberals so let them deal with the loss of freedom consequences.

The only thing I have been doing is pointing out how Liberals cannot be trusted with our rights.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You van trust the left with anything....

 

[SwimExpert]

Would you rather see a ban on gun sales altogether?

This is so often the mentality of the left, isn't it?

By restricting your freedoms, we're giving you something. Because we didn't restrict your freedoms completely. So we're not really restricting gun rights. We're giving you the right to own the guns we have already preselected for you. We're the government, and that's how we do. Everything you have is given by us, so be grateful.

 

[Flash]

Would you rather see a ban on gun sales altogether?

This is so often the mentality of the left, isn't it?

By restricting your freedoms, we're giving you something. Because we didn't restrict your freedoms completely. So we're not really restricting gun rights. We're giving you the right to own the guns we have already preselected for you. We're the government, and that's how we do. Everything you have is given by us, so be grateful.

We should not have to get any permission from the government to enjoy the rights in the Constitution but the Libtards think they have to be the gatekeeper of those rights because they know best.

 

[SwimExpert]

The constitution did not specify what constitutes "arms". The "arms" of the day was a musket and a saber. If you want to own a musket or a saber, have at it.

Which is exactly why it's so stupid to argue that the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets and sabers.