How many deaths are necessary before something should be banned?

[bigrebnc1775]

Yea sure, it doesn't exist in Republican white circles. Same pricks who don't want affirmative action and who only hire white men?

But here you were claiming we need background checks

 

[progressive hunter]

Wait. Were you wrong? You said All that is already in place. You are a liar. Explain what common sense regulations you want. (I know you won't though)

Lesh responded for me by saying. How about universal background checks on ALL gun purchases?

Was Lesh right? Is universal background checks on ALL gun purchases already in place? If you were wrong what you said to me why don't you admit it please.

admit what??

that more laws arent going to stop criminals that dont care about laws??

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well he shouldn't just blow it off and continue to spew nonsense if he was wrong. I noticed how he just kept on arguing. Lesh gave him a great response and he just threw another question back at Lesh. And I like Lesh's reply. Basically nothings going to solve all gun violence. But we could pass some common sense gun legislation that would mitigate the number of Americans who are killed by gun violence.

Don't ask "like what?" Bet you won't answer, and then blow it off when I, or LESH (thank you lesh) give you a good answer. Acknowledge it.

So, How about universal background checks on ALL gun purchases?

How are you going to do universal background checks? California already has that and still has mass shootings

 

[Kruska]

Try this again with supporting documentation and evidence.

The narrative: 30,000 people die due to guns, guns should be banned.
Drunk Driving kills 13,000. Does that number have to get to 30,000 before we ban alcohol again?

Drunk Driving | NHTSA.

What about 2nd hand tobacco smoke. According to the CDC, 2nd hand tobacco smoke deaths is estimated at 41,000 deaths. Where is the political and social outcry to ban tobacco.

All of the above mentioned are regulated via laws.

The only question is as to how much something can or should be regulated.

 

[progressive hunter]

All of the above mentioned are regulated via laws.

The only question is as to how much something can or should be regulated.

in the case of the 2nd A and "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
any regulation other than its true intent of readily available is in violation of the 2nd A,,

 

[Kruska]

in the case of the 2nd A and "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
any regulation other than its true intent of readily available is in violation of the 2nd A,,

If you want to go into detail - the 2nd A - only states the "Right to bear Arms"
It states nothing in regards to using arms, nor a right to ammunition, auto or semi-auto arms, magazine sizes, etc. - therefore amendments came in.

 

[progressive hunter]

If you want to go into detail - the 2nd A - only states the "Right to bear Arms"
It states nothing in regards to using arms, nor a right to ammunition, auto or semi-auto arms, magazine sizes, etc. - therefore amendments came in.

it is very specific to military grade arms and ammo along with any accs is included,,

of course you have to go off of original intent

 

[westwall]

Pretty soon they will be able to make plastic guns in a 3d printer.

They have been able to do that for 5 years.

Where the hell have you been?

 

[westwall]

If you want to go into detail - the 2nd A - only states the "Right to bear Arms"
It states nothing in regards to using arms, nor a right to ammunition, auto or semi-auto arms, magazine sizes, etc. - therefore amendments came in.

Yeah, it does. The ability to use a firearm SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That includes ANY PART OF THE WEAPON, or any accouterments that are used.

The Revolution began because the Brits tried to confiscate the powder supply.

You are factually, historically, and philosophically, wrong.

 

[progressive hunter]

Yeah, it does. The ability to use a firearm SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That includes ANY PART OF THE WEAPON, or any accouterments that are used.

The Revolution began because the Brits tried to confiscate the powder supply.

You are factually, historically, and philosophically, wrong.

watch your wording,, the 2nd is for keeping and bearing arms,, using them is subject to curcumstances,,

these libs will latch on to any word to twist the narrative,,

 

[westwall]

watch your wording,, the 2nd is for keeping and bearing arms,, using them is subject to curcumstances,,

these libs will latch on to any word to twist the narrative,,

I know, but the intent of the 2nd was always very clear, to defend the country from ALL enemies, foreign, AND domestic.

 

[progressive hunter]

I know, but the intent of the 2nd was always very clear, to defend the country from ALL enemies, foreign, AND domestic.

with any weapon available to the enemy we would be fighting,,

 

[westwall]

with any weapon available to the enemy we would be fighting,,

Exactly.

 

[Rigby5]

States are the preferred means of Governance not the Federal Government. The Federal Government is supposed to have LIMITED power.

Sure the federal gov is more distant and a larger threat, so need restrictions.
But after the Civil War was over, the southern states needed to stop abusing the rights of individuals, so then the 14th amendment was passed, that gave the feds authority to stop state abuse of individual rights.

 

[Rigby5]

Are you spreading lies?

A viral meme purports to list homicide statistics by race in the United States, as follows:

• Whites killing Blacks — 2%
• Police killing whites — 3%
• Whites killing whites — 16%
• Blacks killing whites — 81%
• Police killing Blacks — 1%
• Blacks killing Blacks — 97%

Rates of white-on-white and Black-on-Black homicide are similar, at around 80% and 90%​

In 2017, the FBI reported almost identical figures — 80% of white victims were killed by white offenders, and 88% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.

Though the numbers differ year-to-year, the stark difference that the viral post attempts to portray between the rates of white-on-white and Black-on-Black homicide — which it puts at 16% and 97%, respectively — is inaccurate.

Likewise, the post attempts to portray a gulf in the rate of Black-on-white and white-on-Black homicide — which it lists at 81% and 2%, respectively.

Statistics from the FBI in 2018 and 2017 contradict that claim.

In 2018, 16% of white victims were killed by Black offenders, while 8% of Black victims were killed by white offenders.

Similarly, in 2017, 16% of white victims were killed by Black offenders, while 9% of Black victims were killed by white offenders.

In both years, the numbers remained within eight percentage points, a much smaller gap than the 79% alleged in the viral post.

So for one, your using bad numbers. And two, even if they are worse, it aint by much. Then you factor in white privilege and lack of economic opportunities for blacks, and you see at least blacks have an excuse. What's ours?

Wrong.
The main cause of killing is the War on Drugs, which increases drug profits, while forcing large amounts of cash that can not use the protection of banks or police.
Its just like Prohibition also caused a huge murder spike.
So it is white legislators who are causing all the crime.

 

[Rigby5]

Well we may at some point decide that it's too costly for us as a society to allow random Americans to purchase assault weapons. It could happen. Maybe it made sense back then but in the future it won't.

Handguns that hold 6 bullets, sure. My Ruger 450 bushmaster gun is for hunting. 3 round mag. Shotgun holds 5, those remington's from the movies hold 25 but you have to cock the trigger each time, hunting guns.

But Americans have become too nutty to sell them assault rifles. You agree right? Americans in 1800 weren't as fucked up as they are today. Jeffrey Dahmer types. American men are fucked up and getting more and more fucked up by the year.

Wrong.
Assault rifles are full auto, and that has been illegal since 1937.
The only real difference between an AR that is called an "assault rifle" and any hunting rifle, is that the AR uses a much weaker bullet that has very little recoil.
ARs are not full auto.

 

[Rigby5]

Nope. AR's weren't invented back then. Nor did the constitution mention AR's, or xray guns, or laser guns, or nuclear guns.

The 2nd amendment specifically mentioned weapons that would used by a militia if the country was attacked, so that means AR type weapons.
The 2nd amendment was not to preserve hunting, but to preserve citizens soldiers in case we were attacked.
And that does not mean just if a foreign country attacked, but any criminal.

 

[Rigby5]

Wait. Were you wrong? You said All that is already in place. You are a liar. Explain what common sense regulations you want. (I know you won't though)

Lesh responded for me by saying. How about universal background checks on ALL gun purchases?

Was Lesh right? Is universal background checks on ALL gun purchases already in place? If you were wrong what you said to me why don't you admit it please.

Wrong.
The problem with universal background checks is that we can't trust government any more, and we have a right to keep it private from the government, if we have firearms or not.
That is because the government is already so dictatorial that it is very likely on the verge of going full dictatorship, and confiscating all firearms.

The idea of universal background checks is easily exposed as fraud since no criminal intent on murder is going to at all be effected by the minor background check penalty, and all dangerous people are just as dangerous if they have to resort to toxins, flammables, edged weapons, explosives, etc.

 

[AZrailwhale]

See? Crazy huh? That shouldn't happen but it does.

I love using Hunter as an example of why Affirmative Action is still necessary. White privilege exists. Hunter is proof.

Hunter is an example of power privilege, NOT white privilege. Hunter is white trash, without Joe Biden as a father, he’d have been dead from Meth addiction decades ago. It’s amazing how laws get bent for trash who have first a senator, then a vice president and eventually a president for a father.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Well he shouldn't just blow it off and continue to spew nonsense if he was wrong. I noticed how he just kept on arguing. Lesh gave him a great response and he just threw another question back at Lesh. And I like Lesh's reply. Basically nothings going to solve all gun violence. But we could pass some common sense gun legislation that would mitigate the number of Americans who are killed by gun violence.

Don't ask "like what?" Bet you won't answer, and then blow it off when I, or LESH (thank you lesh) give you a good answer. Acknowledge it.

So, How about universal background checks on ALL gun purchases?

Almost all gun violence is committed by criminals, no background check will stop criminals from getting whatever guns they desire. There is no legislation that will materially affect gun violence at all.