Gun control vs. Terrorism (Dem hypocrisy)

[Ray From Cleveland]

It made me think about how the "Left" typically reacts to gun violence, something we heard a lot of after Vegas, and I noticed that the messaging is quite different. After a shooting event the Left seems quick and adamant to try and change our laws to make communities safer. I've heard it communicated as a negligence of duty to not talk about gun control after a shooting. In the same spirit, why isn't there a reaction to legislate a way to keep us safer from terrorism after a terror attack by the Left? Its a rhetorical question, i know why, hence the hypocrisy. But if anybody would like to try to rationalize it then please go ahead!

Simple.

Home Depot Trucks aren't designed to kill people.

Guns are.

But I will bet you'll find out that this guy had a harder time renting a truck from the Home Depot than that other nut had building up a small arsenal.

but they don't like talking about Vegas, do they? nooooo, it's always too soon to talk about getting guns away from people who shouldn't have them.

then they turn around and call normal people "hypocrites"

Who doesn't like talking about Vegas? He purchased his guns legally. Until that evening, he was a regular Joe with no major blemishes on his record. He was a self-made millionaire and very caring man for his family.

The reason your side doesn't want to talk about Vegas is because now you realize there is no law in the country that could have stopped him. Make all the laws you like, but until you make a law that no American can own a firearm, people like that kook in Vegas will be legally allowed to buy them just like you and me.

 

[Slade3200]

Do you support that restriction?

I really have no issue with the automatic weapon restrictions in place.

But I do have an issue with the move to ban semiautomatic weapons

I think it is a fine debate to have. The merits behind the auto restrictions are the same merits for those that argue for further restrictions. Of course there are always going to be those who push for more and there are going to be those who want none and then there is the middle majority whose limitations vary, thus the debate.

The Virginia Tech shooter murdered 32 people with pistols...so now, according to you, we can't have pistols either....right?

Absolutely not, you don’t seem to understand the opposing arguement. Or are you intentionally trying to distort it?

No....you don't seem to understand...you stated that Americans should not have access to weapons that can kill a lot of people in a few seconds.....and yet the Virginia Tech shooter murdered 32 people with pistols.....following your logic, we won't be allowed to have pistols either....

I have already seen one journalist who commented on being in a restaurant in Texas where he saw people openly carrying guns...he wrote about the guy with the revolver...and the other guy with the military pistol...by which he meant the semi-auto pistol that had a magazine.....the anti gunners are not going to let those pistols be owned if they get any real power.....

No that’s not my logic, that’s your warped interpretation of it. You are trying to equate the firepower of a pistol to a machine gun because a guy with a pistol killed 32 people. It isn’t an intellectually honest arguement but I think you know that. Nice try

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No that’s not my logic, that’s your warped interpretation of it. You are trying to equate the firepower of a pistol to a machine gun because a guy with a pistol killed 32 people. It isn’t an intellectually honest arguement but I think you know that. Nice try

Trying to understand your logic here. So if somebody only has a pistol instead of a whatever, and he only kills 40 people instead of 70, you would consider that an accomplishment?

 

[Rustic]

especially in cities like chicago. let's get these gang bangers and their illegal guns off the street.

We need to improve the ratio of well regulated militia to unorganized militia.

You got to read those words in context of that era, it doesn’t mean the same now as it did then.
Enforce the current laws, and don’t allow any new frivolous laws

The context hasn't changed. It means the same now as it did then.

No, not at all.
the second amendment gives every citizen the right to own guns, free of federal regulations, to protect themselves in the face of danger. The amendment's militia clause was never meant to restrict each citizen's rights to bear arms.

No, it doesn't. Arms are declared socialized for the militia in Article 1, Section 8. Any more reading comprehension issues?

Na, The Second Amendment is solely for the individual

 

[Rustic]

Firearm registration is unconstitutional

Not for registered posse.

For the average citizen it is unconstitutional to require firearm registration… Fact

Not sure why. Well regulated militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State.

What Did “Bear Arms” Mean in the Second Amendment?

It does not mean, acquire and possess, that is a natural right not found in our Second Amendment.

The second amendment pertains to the individuals rights to own and bear arms… fact

 

[Rustic]

It made me think about how the "Left" typically reacts to gun violence, something we heard a lot of after Vegas, and I noticed that the messaging is quite different. After a shooting event the Left seems quick and adamant to try and change our laws to make communities safer. I've heard it communicated as a negligence of duty to not talk about gun control after a shooting. In the same spirit, why isn't there a reaction to legislate a way to keep us safer from terrorism after a terror attack by the Left? Its a rhetorical question, i know why, hence the hypocrisy. But if anybody would like to try to rationalize it then please go ahead!

Simple.

Home Depot Trucks aren't designed to kill people.

Guns are.

But I will bet you'll find out that this guy had a harder time renting a truck from the Home Depot than that other nut had building up a small arsenal.

but they don't like talking about Vegas, do they? nooooo, it's always too soon to talk about getting guns away from people who shouldn't have them.

then they turn around and call normal people "hypocrites"

You’re missing the point, people kill people firearms have no control over people…

 

[Slade3200]

No that’s not my logic, that’s your warped interpretation of it. You are trying to equate the firepower of a pistol to a machine gun because a guy with a pistol killed 32 people. It isn’t an intellectually honest arguement but I think you know that. Nice try

Trying to understand your logic here. So if somebody only has a pistol instead of a whatever, and he only kills 40 people instead of 70, you would consider that an accomplishment?

If there is a crazy dude on a rampage I’d much rather see him with a pistol instead of a machine gun... wouldn’t you?

The logic isnt tough

 

[Rustic]

No that’s not my logic, that’s your warped interpretation of it. You are trying to equate the firepower of a pistol to a machine gun because a guy with a pistol killed 32 people. It isn’t an intellectually honest arguement but I think you know that. Nice try

Trying to understand your logic here. So if somebody only has a pistol instead of a whatever, and he only kills 40 people instead of 70, you would consider that an accomplishment?

If there is a crazy dude on a rampage I’d much rather see him with a pistol instead of a machine gun... wouldn’t you?

The logic isnt tough

You don’t understand the issue very well do you?

 

[Slade3200]

No that’s not my logic, that’s your warped interpretation of it. You are trying to equate the firepower of a pistol to a machine gun because a guy with a pistol killed 32 people. It isn’t an intellectually honest arguement but I think you know that. Nice try

Trying to understand your logic here. So if somebody only has a pistol instead of a whatever, and he only kills 40 people instead of 70, you would consider that an accomplishment?

If there is a crazy dude on a rampage I’d much rather see him with a pistol instead of a machine gun... wouldn’t you?

The logic isnt tough

You don’t understand the issue very well do you?

Of course I understand it... I just have a different opinion than you do. It happens

 

[Skull Pilot]

So it seems you don't give a shit about any murders unless they happen during a mass shooting.

I'm sure the families of the other 99% of murder victims appreciate that

Of course I do, why would you say that? You are bringing up a completely different issue. Such a lazy way of debating

Then why poo poo the fact that 5 times a many people are killed annually with knives than with rifles?

Clearly knives are the bigger threat to society than rifles

again, that isn't the argument... It is about the destructive power that we legally allow people to hold... Somebody storming a night club or concert with a knife may still kill a couple people but it wouldn't be anywhere near the damage they would do with a gun, or with an auto, or with a bomb... I think you understand

I am looking at annual totals.

Personally I don't think a murder that occurs in a mass shooting is any different from a murder that occurs any other time with any other weapon.

So a mass murderer isn't worse than just a single murder? Right...

No it's not.

And mass shooting events account for 1% of all murders. Rifles of any kind are used in less than 2% of all murders

 

[Skull Pilot]

Hey...if you want to show a state i.d. to buy a gun....no big deal.....but you need a background check to buy a gun, and you can't buy a gun if you are a felon...that includes private sales......a felon can get insurance, a license and rent a killing truck...

Your right. to get a gun, all he has to do is go to a private seller or go to gun show, no problem.

Nope.....if he uses the gun for a crime, he can be arrested. If he is a felon, he can't legally buy that gun, and if he is caught we can already arrest him. We have the laws in place to deal with these criminals.....the problem is that democrats like you keep letting violent people back on the street..over and over and over again...

Back up your claim. We have the fullest jails in the world

And we tend to lock up more nonviolent offenders.

It's not rocket science to see that we need to reserve prisons for violent offenders and employ alternate sentencing for nonviolent offenders.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It would be bad since none of the law abiding people would have guns....just like in France...where fully automatic rifles are completely, and utterly, illegal........and terrorists, on government terrorists watch lists got a bunch of these completely illegal rifles, along with 30 round magazines, pistols and grenades...and murdered 142 people.....

In a country where fully automatic rifles are completely illegal........

You mean like that?

When the weapons are illegal they can be stopped before people die.
Man charged in mass shooting plot at Milwaukee Masonic center seeks release

Again....in France, terrorists, on government terrorist watch lists got weapons that are completely illegal...fully automatic rifles with 30 round magazines, and just as illegal pistols and grenades....and murdered 142 unarmed people....in a country that bans fully automatic military rifles, 30 round magazines, pistols and grenades....

And here he was stopped before killing anyone.

Man charged in mass shooting plot at Milwaukee Masonic center seeks release

So.........you are getting lazy and weak.....that is really lame...

I like people not dying.

millions of people die every day

 

[Skull Pilot]

It would be bad since none of the law abiding people would have guns....just like in France...where fully automatic rifles are completely, and utterly, illegal........and terrorists, on government terrorists watch lists got a bunch of these completely illegal rifles, along with 30 round magazines, pistols and grenades...and murdered 142 people.....

In a country where fully automatic rifles are completely illegal........

You mean like that?

So it takes 15-20 knife wielding killers to do the damage of one guy with a rifle. Yeah too much firepower.

Yeah......everyone noticed that you ignored the point about the French terrorists getting completely illegal, fully automatic military rifles and murdering 142 people.........here, I'll repeat it...

It would be bad since none of the law abiding people would have guns....just like in France...where fully automatic rifles are completely, and utterly, illegal........and terrorists, on government terrorists watch lists got a bunch of these completely illegal rifles, along with 30 round magazines, pistols and grenades...and murdered 142 people.....

In a country where fully automatic rifles are completely illegal........

Man charged in mass shooting plot at Milwaukee Masonic center seeks release

So what is this supposed to prove?

If the weapon is illegal they can be stopped before people die.

No they can't

 

[Skull Pilot]

I really have no issue with the automatic weapon restrictions in place.

But I do have an issue with the move to ban semiautomatic weapons

I think it is a fine debate to have. The merits behind the auto restrictions are the same merits for those that argue for further restrictions. Of course there are always going to be those who push for more and there are going to be those who want none and then there is the middle majority whose limitations vary, thus the debate.

The Virginia Tech shooter murdered 32 people with pistols...so now, according to you, we can't have pistols either....right?

Absolutely not, you don’t seem to understand the opposing arguement. Or are you intentionally trying to distort it?

No....you don't seem to understand...you stated that Americans should not have access to weapons that can kill a lot of people in a few seconds.....and yet the Virginia Tech shooter murdered 32 people with pistols.....following your logic, we won't be allowed to have pistols either....

I have already seen one journalist who commented on being in a restaurant in Texas where he saw people openly carrying guns...he wrote about the guy with the revolver...and the other guy with the military pistol...by which he meant the semi-auto pistol that had a magazine.....the anti gunners are not going to let those pistols be owned if they get any real power.....

No that’s not my logic, that’s your warped interpretation of it. You are trying to equate the firepower of a pistol to a machine gun because a guy with a pistol killed 32 people. It isn’t an intellectually honest arguement but I think you know that. Nice try

When was the last time a machine gun was used in a murder?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No that’s not my logic, that’s your warped interpretation of it. You are trying to equate the firepower of a pistol to a machine gun because a guy with a pistol killed 32 people. It isn’t an intellectually honest arguement but I think you know that. Nice try

Trying to understand your logic here. So if somebody only has a pistol instead of a whatever, and he only kills 40 people instead of 70, you would consider that an accomplishment?

If there is a crazy dude on a rampage I’d much rather see him with a pistol instead of a machine gun... wouldn’t you?

The logic isnt tough

Logic like nobody ever uses machine guns for mass murders outside of the rigged guns used by the Vegas shooter?

So what would your suggestion be, no semi-automataic guns available to the public?

 

[Skull Pilot]

No that’s not my logic, that’s your warped interpretation of it. You are trying to equate the firepower of a pistol to a machine gun because a guy with a pistol killed 32 people. It isn’t an intellectually honest arguement but I think you know that. Nice try

Trying to understand your logic here. So if somebody only has a pistol instead of a whatever, and he only kills 40 people instead of 70, you would consider that an accomplishment?

If there is a crazy dude on a rampage I’d much rather see him with a pistol instead of a machine gun... wouldn’t you?

The logic isnt tough

Logic like nobody ever uses machine guns for mass murders outside of the rigged guns used by the Vegas shooter?

So what would your suggestion be, no semi-automataic guns available to the public?

Banning semiautomatic weapons is the goal.

 

[JoeB131]

They are a less diverse country as well. Forget about the guns. If you take minority crime out of our statistics,

We still have too many murders, even if you only include white people offing each other.

 

[Skull Pilot]

They are a less diverse country as well. Forget about the guns. If you take minority crime out of our statistics,

We still have too many murders, even if you only include white people offing each other.

and gun laws won't lower the murder rate,

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[danielpalos]

We need to improve the ratio of well regulated militia to unorganized militia.

You got to read those words in context of that era, it doesn’t mean the same now as it did then.
Enforce the current laws, and don’t allow any new frivolous laws

The context hasn't changed. It means the same now as it did then.

No, not at all.
the second amendment gives every citizen the right to own guns, free of federal regulations, to protect themselves in the face of danger. The amendment's militia clause was never meant to restrict each citizen's rights to bear arms.

No, it doesn't. Arms are declared socialized for the militia in Article 1, Section 8. Any more reading comprehension issues?

Not at all, do you see the word common defense? That’s an entirely different meaning than the one you’re trying to do backflips with, mr. reading comprehension. Especially in the context of article one section 8, the LEGISLATIVE powers. Maybe you should take another class?

Especially when you are still completely (and conveniently) ignoring “the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” not the right of the militia, not the right of the government, but the people. Yea that part where you throw all reading comprehension out the window, into a pit, set it ablaze, bury it, re-dig it up, dismember it, put it into separate duffle bags, weigh down the bags, drive 10 miles out in the ocean, and then throw it over board.

I already gave you a history lesson, that should be unnecessary (dear god what has our education system become), into the context of what the militia was back then, a locally sourced group, lead by civilians (not regulated by USG in the sense that you like to use the word regulated, but regulated as in maintained and up-kept by the people), and here’s the most important part...a non USG or state government controlled military that could stand up to the USG if need be. That’s what made the militia necessary to a free people. Not the common defense which was charged with congress as you so clearly misrepresented in article 1 sections 8. Does it really make sense that they put in the 2nd amendment for common defense, and decided to circle back and put it in again but give the powers to the legislative branch without repealing the 2nd amendment???? No use a little critical thinking every once In a while.

I will say this one last time to you crazy pants, our founders wrote extensively about this (they wrote a lot of shit back then, this is what they did for fun, believe it or not they didn’t have social media or tv) so go look up what they actually meant by the second amendment, since you couldn’t use reading comprehension on The Very Hungry Caterpillar to save your life.

Arms are declared socialized for the militia in Article 1, Section 8. Any more reading comprehension issues?