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

[The Rabbi]

No, I'd rather see us abide by the Constitution.

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.

That's a failed argument as per Heller

The founding fathers certainly could not have anticipated ordinary Americans being able to buy a gun that could mow an entire classroom of children down in seconds. Are you suggesting that they did?

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

And no doubt, you think you can find a justification in the constitution for allowing the sales, purchase, and use of just about any weapon. Good luck with that.

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

 

[orogenicman]

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?

No, I'd rather see us abide by the Constitution.

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.

the SC says you are incorrect

Citation, please.

 

[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?

No, I'd rather see us abide by the Constitution.

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.

the SC says you are incorrect

Citation, please.

It's in Scalia's majority opinion in Heller.
Based on what you say there should be no free speech in radio or TV or on the internet since those things werent invented yet either.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

No shit Sherlock.

At least. No one knows exactly how many.

All the more evidence that it is out of control.

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.

Ever hear of tongue and cheek? Take a pill, dude.

 

[S.J.]

The founding fathers knew that sooner or later we would elect a wolf in sheep's clothing who would use our laws to open the door to government tyranny, and the second amendment was the best safeguard against that. They were right on both counts. We now have a despot in the WH and the second amendment is the only thing keeping him and his communist buddies from taking our rights away by force.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Your paranoid rant aside, it was a yes or no question. So I'll chock your response down to a no.

 

[martybegan]

Erm, if there are no guns, there is no gun violence. People were defending themselves long before the invention of guns. And they didn't need an uzi to do it.

No cars, no car deaths.

If there were no cars there would not be 50,000 people a year dying on the roads. People got around long before the invention of cars. They don't need something that goes 60 MPH to get around do they?

That's true. But then, cars are not designed specifically to kill people. Guns are. And the figure is about 36,000, not 50,000. But since you want to compare car deaths with gun deaths, let's do that, shall we?

As you can see, since 1999, while automobile deaths have clearly substantially dropped as a result of drunk driving laws, and car safety design features, at the same time, the number of firearm deaths have clearly risen. Care to comment?

Does your rise in firearms deaths exceed the increase in US population?

Probably not. Does it matter when so many are dying?

It does when you try to compare it to another statistic in a vain attempt at making a "point", and imply an increase when there really isn't one on a per-capita basis

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Controlling Anger -- Before It Controls You

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

No shit Sherlock.

At least. No one knows exactly how many.

All the more evidence that it is out of control.

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.

Ever hear of tongue and cheek? Take a pill, dude.

So I shouldnt take you seriously? Dont worry, I dont.

 

[orogenicman]

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:

The purpose of this thread is show just how unreasonable Libtards are when it comes to defining things like "not unlimited".

If you give the filthy ass Libtards any say in the matter they will do stupid things, like pass the SAFE Act in New York that was used to take the firearms away from a veteran that had visited a doctor because of insomnia. .

Someone needs to take an anger management course. In fact, I believe that every gun owner should be required to take an anger management course.

I believe we need to insitute an IQ test to post on this site. Of course if we did there would be about 10 of us agreeing with each other.

IQ tests are bogus.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

That's a failed argument as per Heller

The founding fathers certainly could not have anticipated ordinary Americans being able to buy a gun that could mow an entire classroom of children down in seconds. Are you suggesting that they did?

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

And no doubt, you think you can find a justification in the constitution for allowing the sales, purchase, and use of just about any weapon. Good luck with that.

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Does the second amendment allow an individual to purchase a fully functional and armed M1 Abrams tank? Or a Mark IV nuclear weapon? No? So you admit that there are limitations to the second amendment.

 

[orogenicman]

Would you rather see a ban on gun sales altogether?

No, I'd rather see us abide by the Constitution.

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.

the SC says you are incorrect

Citation, please.

It's in Scalia's majority opinion in Heller.
Based on what you say there should be no free speech in radio or TV or on the internet since those things werent invented yet either.

Straw man.

 

[orogenicman]

The founding fathers knew that sooner or later we would elect a wolf in sheep's clothing who would use our laws to open the door to government tyranny, and the second amendment was the best safeguard against that. They were right on both counts. We now have a despot in the WH and the second amendment is the only thing keeping him and his communist buddies from taking our rights away by force.

It is arguments like the above, and the fact that people like that are likely armed that makes me fear for the future of this country.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's a failed argument as per Heller

The founding fathers certainly could not have anticipated ordinary Americans being able to buy a gun that could mow an entire classroom of children down in seconds. Are you suggesting that they did?

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

And no doubt, you think you can find a justification in the constitution for allowing the sales, purchase, and use of just about any weapon. Good luck with that.

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Does the second amendment allow an individual to purchase a fully functional and armed M1 Abrams tank? Or a Mark IV nuclear weapon? No? So you admit that there are limitations to the second amendment.

I didnt say otherwise, snurdley. The Supreme Court has already weighed in on what constitutes "arms" under the 2A.

 

[orogenicman]

Erm, if there are no guns, there is no gun violence. People were defending themselves long before the invention of guns. And they didn't need an uzi to do it.

No cars, no car deaths.

If there were no cars there would not be 50,000 people a year dying on the roads. People got around long before the invention of cars. They don't need something that goes 60 MPH to get around do they?

That's true. But then, cars are not designed specifically to kill people. Guns are. And the figure is about 36,000, not 50,000. But since you want to compare car deaths with gun deaths, let's do that, shall we?

As you can see, since 1999, while automobile deaths have clearly substantially dropped as a result of drunk driving laws, and car safety design features, at the same time, the number of firearm deaths have clearly risen. Care to comment?

Does your rise in firearms deaths exceed the increase in US population?

Probably not. Does it matter when so many are dying?

It does when you try to compare it to another statistic in a vain attempt at making a "point", and imply an increase when there really isn't one on a per-capita basis

The points, Marty, are:

1) Cars are not designed as weapons:

2) Automakers have actually improved their products to make them safer. And it shows in the statistics.

3) Whereas, gun makers are continuously trying, by design, to make their products more lethal.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, I'd rather see us abide by the Constitution.

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.

the SC says you are incorrect

Citation, please.

It's in Scalia's majority opinion in Heller.
Based on what you say there should be no free speech in radio or TV or on the internet since those things werent invented yet either.

Straw man.

I think you dont know what the term means.
If you suggest that the 2A means only muskets than the 1A must mean only printed matter and individual speakers. Since you wont buy the latter you cannot endorse the former.

 

[martybegan]

No cars, no car deaths.

If there were no cars there would not be 50,000 people a year dying on the roads. People got around long before the invention of cars. They don't need something that goes 60 MPH to get around do they?

That's true. But then, cars are not designed specifically to kill people. Guns are. And the figure is about 36,000, not 50,000. But since you want to compare car deaths with gun deaths, let's do that, shall we?

As you can see, since 1999, while automobile deaths have clearly substantially dropped as a result of drunk driving laws, and car safety design features, at the same time, the number of firearm deaths have clearly risen. Care to comment?

Does your rise in firearms deaths exceed the increase in US population?

Probably not. Does it matter when so many are dying?

It does when you try to compare it to another statistic in a vain attempt at making a "point", and imply an increase when there really isn't one on a per-capita basis

The points, Marty, are:

1) Cars are not designed as weapons:

2) Automakers have actually improved their products to make them safer. And it shows in the statistics.

3) Whereas, gun makers are continuously trying, by design, to make their products more lethal.

More "points" that are just standard gun grabber buzz words, nothing more. I pointed out your false comparison, and all you have is mush to post back.

And considering gun development is pretty much at an apex, what are manufacturer's doing? poisoning their bullets now?

 

[SwimExpert]

IQ tests are bogus.

Why?

 

[orogenicman]

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.

No shit Sherlock.

At least. No one knows exactly how many.

All the more evidence that it is out of control.

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.

Ever hear of tongue and cheek? Take a pill, dude.

So I shouldnt take you seriously? Dont worry, I dont.

Take it any way you care to. Whatever blows up your dress.

 

[The Rabbi]

No cars, no car deaths.

If there were no cars there would not be 50,000 people a year dying on the roads. People got around long before the invention of cars. They don't need something that goes 60 MPH to get around do they?

That's true. But then, cars are not designed specifically to kill people. Guns are. And the figure is about 36,000, not 50,000. But since you want to compare car deaths with gun deaths, let's do that, shall we?

As you can see, since 1999, while automobile deaths have clearly substantially dropped as a result of drunk driving laws, and car safety design features, at the same time, the number of firearm deaths have clearly risen. Care to comment?

Does your rise in firearms deaths exceed the increase in US population?

Probably not. Does it matter when so many are dying?

It does when you try to compare it to another statistic in a vain attempt at making a "point", and imply an increase when there really isn't one on a per-capita basis

The points, Marty, are:

1) Cars are not designed as weapons:

2) Automakers have actually improved their products to make them safer. And it shows in the statistics.

3) Whereas, gun makers are continuously trying, by design, to make their products more lethal.

The actual points are:
1) Design is irrelevant. Cars can kill and do kill much more and more frequently than guns.
2) Gun makers produce very safe products. Car makers produce cars subject to recall. Comparatively few guns are recalled as defective.
3) Comparing death and injury from accidents involving cars to death and injury from intentional acts involving guns is comparing oranges to orangutangs.