Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Reductio ad absurdum fallacy!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.They didn't envision gay marriage, or anchor babies, yet libs can find the justification for those things in the Constitution.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?
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.Reductio ad absurdum fallacy!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.They didn't envision gay marriage, or anchor babies, yet libs can find the justification for those things in the Constitution.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?
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.
Please post which of them thinks there is absolutely no restriction the type of weapon allowed under the 2A.I didnt say otherwise, snurdley. The Supreme Court has already weighed in on what constitutes "arms" under the 2A.Reductio ad absurdum fallacy!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.They didn't envision gay marriage, or anchor babies, yet libs can find the justification for those things in the Constitution.
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.
Don't tell me. Tell your buddies.
I think you dont know what the term means.It's in Scalia's majority opinion in Heller.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.
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.
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.
I know the meaning of the word "worthless". And your picture is right there.I think you dont know what the term means.It's in Scalia's majority opinion in Heller.the SC says you are incorrect
Citation, please.
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.
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.
Most certainly, I do know the meaning of the term. And when I brought up muskets, I was being facetious. You do understand the meaning of that word, right?
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?
IQ tests are bogus.
Why?
The actual points are: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.
1) Design is irrelevant. Cars can kill and do kill much more and more frequently than guns.
Marty said:2) Gun makers produce very safe products. Car makers produce cars subject to recall. Comparatively few guns are recalled as defective.
Marty said:3) Comparing death and injury from accidents involving cars to death and injury from intentional acts involving guns is comparing oranges to orangutangs.
Reductio ad absurdum fallacy!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.They didn't envision gay marriage, or anchor babies, yet libs can find the justification for those things in the Constitution.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?
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.
OK, why can NYC prevent me from carrying a simple revolver unless I get their approval and blessing? How is that allowed under the 2nd amendment?
We are not talking tanks or bazookas. Why can NYC tell me I can't walk around the streets with a concealed revolver unless they "let" me?
I'd suggest you learn something about gun and the gun industry before you spout off again.The actual points are: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.
1) Design is irrelevant. Cars can kill and do kill much more and more frequently than guns.
If the design was irrelevant, model Ts would still be the primary car on the road.
Marty said:2) Gun makers produce very safe products. Car makers produce cars subject to recall. Comparatively few guns are recalled as defective.
That is a ridiculous claim. There is nothing safe about a gun. Those who believe that guns are safe are part of the problem. Few guns are recalled because the NRA lobbies to prevent them from being recalled. Ask the ATF is this is the case.
Marty said:3) Comparing death and injury from accidents involving cars to death and injury from intentional acts involving guns is comparing oranges to orangutangs.
Oh, I completely agree. Perhaps you should point that out to Flash.
Please post which of them thinks there is absolutely no restriction the type of weapon allowed under the 2A.I didnt say otherwise, snurdley. The Supreme Court has already weighed in on what constitutes "arms" under the 2A.Reductio ad absurdum fallacy!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.
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.
Don't tell me. Tell your buddies.
Perhaps you need to take your head out of your ass.Please post which of them thinks there is absolutely no restriction the type of weapon allowed under the 2A.I didnt say otherwise, snurdley. The Supreme Court has already weighed in on what constitutes "arms" under the 2A.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.
Don't tell me. Tell your buddies.
Perhaps you need to review the posts in this thread.
I know the meaning of the word "worthless". And your picture is right there.I think you dont know what the term means.It's in Scalia's majority opinion in Heller.Citation, please.
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.
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.
Most certainly, I do know the meaning of the term. And when I brought up muskets, I was being facetious. You do understand the meaning of that word, right?
Why dont you post an actual argument instead of posting things and then saying you were joking?
I'd suggest you learn something about gun and the gun industry before you spout off again.The actual points are: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.
1) Design is irrelevant. Cars can kill and do kill much more and more frequently than guns.
If the design was irrelevant, model Ts would still be the primary car on the road.
Marty said:2) Gun makers produce very safe products. Car makers produce cars subject to recall. Comparatively few guns are recalled as defective.
That is a ridiculous claim. There is nothing safe about a gun. Those who believe that guns are safe are part of the problem. Few guns are recalled because the NRA lobbies to prevent them from being recalled. Ask the ATF is this is the case.
Marty said:3) Comparing death and injury from accidents involving cars to death and injury from intentional acts involving guns is comparing oranges to orangutangs.
Oh, I completely agree. Perhaps you should point that out to Flash.
Seriously. Your ignorance is astounding.
Perhaps you need to take your head out of your ass.Please post which of them thinks there is absolutely no restriction the type of weapon allowed under the 2A.I didnt say otherwise, snurdley. The Supreme Court has already weighed in on what constitutes "arms" under the 2A.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.
Don't tell me. Tell your buddies.
Perhaps you need to review the posts in this thread.
Guns work just as they were designed. The fire bullets when the trigger is pulled. There is nothing nefarious and nothing defective about that. That some people want to point the gun in a certain direction and pull the trigger is not the gun maker's fault. Any more than the person pointing a car into a crowd of children and hitting the gas is the car makers fault.
Yeah, you fear you'll never be able to see the U.S. become a communist dictatorship as long as there are people like me who understand and appreciate the reason the second amendment was put there.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.
Yeah, you fear you'll never be able to see the U.S. become a communist dictatorship as long as there are people like me who understand and appreciate the reason the second amendment was put there.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.
Like chain saws and many other things, they are perfectly safe when used as intended. The maker is not responsible for misuse of the product. By your standard cars are not safe either.Perhaps you need to take your head out of your ass.Please post which of them thinks there is absolutely no restriction the type of weapon allowed under the 2A.I didnt say otherwise, snurdley. The Supreme Court has already weighed in on what constitutes "arms" under the 2A.
Don't tell me. Tell your buddies.
Perhaps you need to review the posts in this thread.
Guns work just as they were designed. The fire bullets when the trigger is pulled. There is nothing nefarious and nothing defective about that. That some people want to point the gun in a certain direction and pull the trigger is not the gun maker's fault. Any more than the person pointing a car into a crowd of children and hitting the gas is the car makers fault.
Right. Unlike a car, they are designed specifically to kill. Thanks for proving my point. I didn't say they were defective. I said they were not safe. And I stand by that statement. Do you really want to continue this line of reasoning?
You shuld consult a psychiatrist about your unnatural fear of legally armed citizens.Yeah, you fear you'll never be able to see the U.S. become a communist dictatorship as long as there are people like me who understand and appreciate the reason the second amendment was put there.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.
On the contrary, I fear the U.S. could fall victim to lawless gun-toting anarchists. You seem to confuse the rule of law with communism. Perhaps you should review the definitions of terms.
Like chain saws and many other things, they are perfectly safe when used as intended. The maker is not responsible for misuse of the product. By your standard cars are not safe either.Perhaps you need to take your head out of your ass.Please post which of them thinks there is absolutely no restriction the type of weapon allowed under the 2A.Don't tell me. Tell your buddies.
Perhaps you need to review the posts in this thread.
Guns work just as they were designed. The fire bullets when the trigger is pulled. There is nothing nefarious and nothing defective about that. That some people want to point the gun in a certain direction and pull the trigger is not the gun maker's fault. Any more than the person pointing a car into a crowd of children and hitting the gas is the car makers fault.
Right. Unlike a car, they are designed specifically to kill. Thanks for proving my point. I didn't say they were defective. I said they were not safe. And I stand by that statement. Do you really want to continue this line of reasoning?
What was your point here again?
