Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

[Defiant1]

No I don't.

I don't sell guns to anyone.

We already have gun laws on the books to deal with illegal possession of firearms and when those laws are enforced they work

Yes you do, you make really dangerous weapons legal. Because of you the weapon used was legally purchased.

FYI an AR 15 is not "really" dangerous
In fact there are a hell of lot more things that are more dangerous than guns out there in the world.

What you people can't seem to understand is that I am not responsible for the bad acts of another person.

Maybe we should all have our drivers licenses suspended because some people drive drunk huh?

And yet they have been used to kill over 50 people really quickly by one shooter . Seems dangerous to me.

So?

Anyone could do the same thing with a really big truck and a snow plow

And it's not the gun that is dangerous it's the person shooting it that is the danger

If everyone could carry a bomb, think how safe we would be.

I don't know about bombs, but hand grenades would be useful.

 

[Blues Man]

And it still only accounts for less than 1% of all murders

Which is a lot of death in a country of over 300 million. A huge percent of murder involves firearms. Hundreds die each year just in accidents.

So now you want to make everything that can accidentally kill you illegal too?

MAybe it would be easier for you to list the things you think should be legal

Just sharing the facts. We can do away with useless things like guns that can accidentally kill you.

HOw many other things that can accidentally kill you are "useless"

And FYI self defense with the best tool for the job is extremely useful

Haven’t needed one. Think those involved in criminal activities are most likely to need it.

Good for you but your life is not the standard that applies to anyone else but you

And I wasn't involved in any criminal activities when I was jumped and beaten to the tune of 3 cracked ribs, a lacerated spleen, a fractured eye orbital and a severe concussion

Only a moron would think his little sheltered life is the standard for everyone

 

[Defiant1]

No, we identify the crazy people, give them their due process, then place them where they can't hurt people.

It seems like in this country we only identify the crazy people after they've already shot up a bunch of people. Does that seem effective?

------------------------------------- think it unAmerican and unethical for 'head doktors' to go around labeling people as being Crazy isn't it 'NYBod .

We should at least try to identify the crazy people trying to buy a gun.

You don't think that is being done now?
Have you ever seen the NICS form?
What would you do different?

I would ban all guns and enact stiff felony prison sentences for offenders.

Barring that, I would look for something that has not already failed. Because the crazies are still buying legal guns.

In reality, gun nutters are too afraid to ever get their white knuckles loose from their guns willingly.

I expect the next Democrat president to take executive action. The Supremes see to be okay with that notion.

So you don't believe a person has an inalienable right to protect their life, their family, and their property?

 

[NotYourBody]

So if a car pulls up in your driveway and 4 thugs with their pants below their asses get out, you want a bolt action rifle?

That seems pretty random. Does it happen to you often?

 

[Slade3200]

you mean where he said "who would bring a machine gun to a football game?" and followed up with no one, it's a stupid question?

Breaking News - Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

i went back 250 posts and never saw him say it's fine to bring a machine gun to a school. please give me your direct reference.

I had two posters literally say bring guns into schools. And then blues guy calls it a stupid question and when pressed responds with this...
“I don't care if people own machine guns

I have no problem with the owners of any property setting the rules on what is permissible on their property.

That said there is no reason to stop anyone who can legally carry a concealed weapon from doing so anywhere”

You are right he never said the words “bring guns into school”... he played around giving a direct answer so I shot back... I’ll take back my comment and ask him to further clarify if he believes the second amendment can and should be restricted by federal, state and or local laws or should it not. If not then legally anybody would be able to buy and bring a gun into a school. If so then he believes we can regulate it

so like i said - you took pieces of a conversation and put them together on your own - each step requiring an assumption on your part to link the two.

i've pointed this out to you a lot, DamnDude has also and others i'm sure.

before i say someone is ok with bringing a machine gun to school i'm going to ask the direction question. not ask things like "so you think people should own machine guns" and get a yes and then extrapolate to our own ends and in effect, create a strawman along the way. and it looks like he answered your questions, you just didn't like them or they were not what you wanted him to say, so you went this route.

from my vantage point anyway.

I apologized to him and ask him to clarify his position. Thanks for keeping me in check

What odds to you give him to actually answer the question and clarifying the position? ;-)

from reading his replies, he has clarified it. but no, not to the manner you wish.

my take on bluesman:
if you're licensed you should be able to own a gun even up to a machine gun. logic being that to get licensed you've gone through every gambit and check that can be thrown at you and came up clean. while i may not agree with private people owning machine guns, it doesn't matter as he gave a trail from idea to reasoning behind it.

if you're licensed you should be able to carry concealed weapons where you wish. he never said a thing about machine guns in schools and even said no one would or should take them to a football game. i assume he means a school game but in any event, he clarified his point.

as for what other people do - don't care really. i care about what i do cause i'm the only one i can control. sometimes.

I think he is padding his answers hiding behind laws that are currently in the books when I’m trying to get clear about his opinion on our right to make laws that regulate guns. There are many absolutists out there they truly believe that no regulations should be in place as that’s what the constitution says. They want guns everywhere as they think it makes everybody safer. I disagree with this viewpoint and I like to see where the person I’m debating stands. If it is determined that we do have the right and responsibility to regulate guns then we can move into what makes sense.

This debate often gets locked up by the 2nd amendment as an unalienable Right that shall not be infringed upon. Cant get into common ground in regulations when you debating somebody who believes that it can’t be regulated

 

[Blues Man]

Yes you do, you make really dangerous weapons legal. Because of you the weapon used was legally purchased.

FYI an AR 15 is not "really" dangerous
In fact there are a hell of lot more things that are more dangerous than guns out there in the world.

What you people can't seem to understand is that I am not responsible for the bad acts of another person.

Maybe we should all have our drivers licenses suspended because some people drive drunk huh?

And yet they have been used to kill over 50 people really quickly by one shooter . Seems dangerous to me.

So?

Anyone could do the same thing with a really big truck and a snow plow

And it's not the gun that is dangerous it's the person shooting it that is the danger

If everyone could carry a bomb, think how safe we would be.

I don't know about bombs, but hand grenades would be useful.

not really as they are too indiscriminate

an effective self defense weapon is one that can be directed accurately

 

[OldLady]

It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.
Maybe they had both reasons on their minds. Considering what they had just been through with the King of England, can you blame them? That is no longer a valid argument either, though, since we would have a snowball's chance in hell of fighting the US military with our personal collections of AR's, AK's and SKS's should a despotic government try to overthrow our democracy.

That may be your opinion

But you underestimate what several million committed people can do and how much of the US military would oppose the government if it really came down to it?

I think it would be more than you do obviously.

And the second amendment even if it doesn't expressly state it is also about the right of an individual to protect his own life. The framers all thought that self preservation was such an obvious and natural right that there was no reason to codify it

Does it take 29 rifles to protect your own life? How many handguns?
LIMITING and strictly registering and vetting owners of firearms would not take away the opportunity for responsible people from bearing arms. The founders lived in a very different world, culturally and technologically. That is why the Constitution was designed to change with the times.

--------------------------------------------------------- in the USA you can own any number of cars , motorcycles or guns that you like . And that being said , only one gun at a time can be used at a time OldLady . And your claim that the Constitution was DESIGNED to change with the times is your OPINION OldLady .

No, it's not an opinion, Pismoe.
Article 5
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Do you believe we have inalienable rights or only the rights "bestowed" upon us by the government?

Isn't there something about "natural rights" like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I don't know. I'm not a philosopher.

 

[Blues Man]

That may be your opinion

But you underestimate what several million committed people can do and how much of the US military would oppose the government if it really came down to it?

I think it would be more than you do obviously.

And the second amendment even if it doesn't expressly state it is also about the right of an individual to protect his own life. The framers all thought that self preservation was such an obvious and natural right that there was no reason to codify it

Does it take 29 rifles to protect your own life? How many handguns?
LIMITING and strictly registering and vetting owners of firearms would not take away the opportunity for responsible people from bearing arms. The founders lived in a very different world, culturally and technologically. That is why the Constitution was designed to change with the times.

--------------------------------------------------------- in the USA you can own any number of cars , motorcycles or guns that you like . And that being said , only one gun at a time can be used at a time OldLady . And your claim that the Constitution was DESIGNED to change with the times is your OPINION OldLady .

No, it's not an opinion, Pismoe.
Article 5
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Do you believe we have inalienable rights or only the rights "bestowed" upon us by the government?

Isn't there something about "natural rights" like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I don't know. I'm not a philosopher.

And you don't realize that you position is against the natural right of self preservation do you?

I firearm is the single most effective tool for self defense.

 

[pismoe]

Perhaps if the Democrat party would stop demonizing guns (inanimate objects) more people would be comfortable owning, learning to shoot and would carry. We constantly hear how we should wait for law enforcement but, even where cops can get to the perp right away (as with the Garlic Festival) still people had to die and be injured. My contention is that if guns were acceptable for people to open-carry, this little punk would have been put down quickly and efficiently.

The US military is barred from acting on US soil.

And the second was not conceived for the possibility of an attack by a foreign power. It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.

So what other rights are you willing to give up to stop criminals from committing crimes>\?

How about your 4th or 5t amendment rights? I mean if you're innocent you shouldn't care if the police search your home whenever they want or if they arrest and innterrogste you for hours on end right?

It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.
Maybe they had both reasons on their minds. Considering what they had just been through with the King of England, can you blame them? That is no longer a valid argument either, though, since we would have a snowball's chance in hell of fighting the US military with our personal collections of AR's, AK's and SKS's should a despotic government try to overthrow our democracy.

That may be your opinion

But you underestimate what several million committed people can do and how much of the US military would oppose the government if it really came down to it?

I think it would be more than you do obviously.

And the second amendment even if it doesn't expressly state it is also about the right of an individual to protect his own life. The framers all thought that self preservation was such an obvious and natural right that there was no reason to codify it

Does it take 29 rifles to protect your own life? How many handguns?
LIMITING and strictly registering and vetting owners of firearms would not take away the opportunity for responsible people from bearing arms. The founders lived in a very different world, culturally and technologically. That is why the Constitution was designed to change with the times.

--------------------------------------------------------- in the USA you can own any number of cars , motorcycles or guns that you like . And that being said , only one gun at a time can be used at a time OldLady . And your claim that the Constitution was DESIGNED to change with the times is your OPINION OldLady .

And the opinion of many, many others..in fact..probably a majority of Americans believe that the Constitution is a 'living document". I know you find that view abhorrent..but..as you say..that's your OPINION.

----------------------------------- Not me . There seem to be enough like me to keep thing halfway going my way for my lifetime at least . Lots of fights , money spent but things are ok for my generation I think . Depending on your age its YOU and younger Americans that are fecked as things change 'EEFleegle

 

[Polishprince]

So if a car pulls up in your driveway and 4 thugs with their pants below their asses get out, you want a bolt action rifle?

That seems pretty random. Does it happen to you often?

It definitely happens to some people , you know. Sure, a more limited weapon is all that some people need. But others, depending on the area they live in or the acquaintances they keep, need more powerful weapons. That's why EACH INDIVIDUAL should choose what weapons they need, not the government.

 

[Slade3200]

Yeah yeah and Rs called Obama hitler all the time. I dont care much about what the wingnut partisans have to say.

Make up your mind then Slade3200
1. if you don't take it literally calling Obama "Hitler" then do you treat liberals
calling Trump Hitler or Racist just as flippantly?
2. Do you want to be taken seriously and your objections addressed and included/represented?
Why treat "rightwing" as not counting seriously, but then want your issues to be considered?

Whatever way you want to be taken,
if you take others that way, you get reciprocal treatment in return.

Respect is earned. If you want to be represented, it makes
sense to respect how others represent their views, issues,
concerns and objections instead of both sides trying to overrule each other.

Wouldn't we be better off ADDRESSING each other's objections
so we can solve problems EFFECTIVELY instead of imposing back and forth?

What science or math problems were ever solved by erasing and excluding
half the data? Doesn't it just make sense if we are going to construct reforms,
policies and programs that REPRESENT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC this means
INCLUDING not excluding input from ALL PEOPLE, not just ones we identify with.

What happened to the Golden Rule, of treating others as you want to be treated?
How else are we going to achieve "equal justice under law" for EVERYONE
if we keep competing to ignore, overrule and exclude opposing groups???

I live by the golden rule. I have my opinions and political leanings but do my best to give all sides a fair shot. Not sure what your gripe with me is. I don’t support the lefts hyperbole about Trump. But I also call out a lot of his bullshit

for someone who doesn't support the hyperbole, you sure to engage in it a lot.

trump is full of shit a lot. yes. but that's not nazi, communist, racist or the like. somewhere along the way we've lost sense of meaning in words and can only use the most extreme to describe people, devaluing the meaning of extreme words in the end.

I’ve never called trump Nazi commie or racist. He is an opportunist and while trying to appear tough and gain political points he has made racist remarks, emboldened bigots, and stirred hate and division... many left wingnuts have done the same. But yes I focus more on Trump, he is the POTUS after all

last time we got into it was because you were saying trump was making racist statements about GO BACK HOME comments. any attempt to tone that down didn't fare well with you and it just got ugly.

now we find the very people he was talking to/about said the same thing 4+ years ago yet for them it's not racist.

that word changes meaning as people need it to and that's a huge part of our problem.

Go back home is not a racist comment but Trumps was more than that... no need to get back into that discussion, that’s a whole different can of worms

 

[iceberg]

I had two posters literally say bring guns into schools. And then blues guy calls it a stupid question and when pressed responds with this...
“I don't care if people own machine guns

I have no problem with the owners of any property setting the rules on what is permissible on their property.

That said there is no reason to stop anyone who can legally carry a concealed weapon from doing so anywhere”

You are right he never said the words “bring guns into school”... he played around giving a direct answer so I shot back... I’ll take back my comment and ask him to further clarify if he believes the second amendment can and should be restricted by federal, state and or local laws or should it not. If not then legally anybody would be able to buy and bring a gun into a school. If so then he believes we can regulate it

so like i said - you took pieces of a conversation and put them together on your own - each step requiring an assumption on your part to link the two.

i've pointed this out to you a lot, DamnDude has also and others i'm sure.

before i say someone is ok with bringing a machine gun to school i'm going to ask the direction question. not ask things like "so you think people should own machine guns" and get a yes and then extrapolate to our own ends and in effect, create a strawman along the way. and it looks like he answered your questions, you just didn't like them or they were not what you wanted him to say, so you went this route.

from my vantage point anyway.

I apologized to him and ask him to clarify his position. Thanks for keeping me in check

What odds to you give him to actually answer the question and clarifying the position? ;-)

from reading his replies, he has clarified it. but no, not to the manner you wish.

my take on bluesman:
if you're licensed you should be able to own a gun even up to a machine gun. logic being that to get licensed you've gone through every gambit and check that can be thrown at you and came up clean. while i may not agree with private people owning machine guns, it doesn't matter as he gave a trail from idea to reasoning behind it.

if you're licensed you should be able to carry concealed weapons where you wish. he never said a thing about machine guns in schools and even said no one would or should take them to a football game. i assume he means a school game but in any event, he clarified his point.

as for what other people do - don't care really. i care about what i do cause i'm the only one i can control. sometimes.

I think he is padding his answers hiding behind laws that are currently in the books when I’m trying to get clear about his opinion on our right to make laws that regulate guns. There are many absolutists out there they truly believe that no regulations should be in place as that’s what the constitution says. They want guns everywhere as they think it makes everybody safer. I disagree with this viewpoint and I like to see where the person I’m debating stands. If it is determined that we do have the right and responsibility to regulate guns then we can move into what makes sense.

This debate often gets locked up by the 2nd amendment as an unalienable Right that shall not be infringed upon. Can get into common ground in regulations when you debating somebody who believes that it can’t be regulated

its hard to get into a regulation discussion with a gun rights advocate when the left says GET RID OF THEM ALL after saying WE'RE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS.

most gun rights people would be willing to talk about options except that historically the left never stops at "just 1 statue" to be removed, now do they? they tend to treat a compromise or agreement as a starting point to go after the rest of what they want.

hell it wasn't til recently the media stopped saying an AR15 was an automatic weapon. it is not. it never has been. it's also not an assault rifle but over time, the left, as they tend to do, has degraded the word to fit their views and gets pretty upset if you don't follow along on that journey. when pressed for how an AR15 is different from a browning longtrac rifle (also a semi-automatic in .308 form in this example) they can't do it. when they realized an AR is about the same as a .22 in how they fire, they now want all semi-automatics gone. the more they learn about a topic the more they want it gone, not compromised.

you tell me - how do you reasonably find common ground with people who won't allow that to happen but keep altering the landscape until they get what they FEEL they want?

 

[iceberg]

Make up your mind then Slade3200
1. if you don't take it literally calling Obama "Hitler" then do you treat liberals
calling Trump Hitler or Racist just as flippantly?
2. Do you want to be taken seriously and your objections addressed and included/represented?
Why treat "rightwing" as not counting seriously, but then want your issues to be considered?

Whatever way you want to be taken,
if you take others that way, you get reciprocal treatment in return.

Respect is earned. If you want to be represented, it makes
sense to respect how others represent their views, issues,
concerns and objections instead of both sides trying to overrule each other.

Wouldn't we be better off ADDRESSING each other's objections
so we can solve problems EFFECTIVELY instead of imposing back and forth?

What science or math problems were ever solved by erasing and excluding
half the data? Doesn't it just make sense if we are going to construct reforms,
policies and programs that REPRESENT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC this means
INCLUDING not excluding input from ALL PEOPLE, not just ones we identify with.

What happened to the Golden Rule, of treating others as you want to be treated?
How else are we going to achieve "equal justice under law" for EVERYONE
if we keep competing to ignore, overrule and exclude opposing groups???

I live by the golden rule. I have my opinions and political leanings but do my best to give all sides a fair shot. Not sure what your gripe with me is. I don’t support the lefts hyperbole about Trump. But I also call out a lot of his bullshit

for someone who doesn't support the hyperbole, you sure to engage in it a lot.

trump is full of shit a lot. yes. but that's not nazi, communist, racist or the like. somewhere along the way we've lost sense of meaning in words and can only use the most extreme to describe people, devaluing the meaning of extreme words in the end.

I’ve never called trump Nazi commie or racist. He is an opportunist and while trying to appear tough and gain political points he has made racist remarks, emboldened bigots, and stirred hate and division... many left wingnuts have done the same. But yes I focus more on Trump, he is the POTUS after all

last time we got into it was because you were saying trump was making racist statements about GO BACK HOME comments. any attempt to tone that down didn't fare well with you and it just got ugly.

now we find the very people he was talking to/about said the same thing 4+ years ago yet for them it's not racist.

that word changes meaning as people need it to and that's a huge part of our problem.

Go back home is not a racist comment but Trumps was more than that... no need to get back into that discussion, that’s a whole different can of worms

except that is all he said. the rest was you putting YOUR 2+2=Racist comment together by making assumptions we've already also discussed in this thread about blues man and what he was actually saying vs. what you were saying he was saying.

when it's only racist when 1 person does it, it's not racist.

and your not liking the manner in which he answers your questions doesn't make his answers wrong or hiding either.

 

[Defiant1]

That may be your opinion

But you underestimate what several million committed people can do and how much of the US military would oppose the government if it really came down to it?

I think it would be more than you do obviously.

And the second amendment even if it doesn't expressly state it is also about the right of an individual to protect his own life. The framers all thought that self preservation was such an obvious and natural right that there was no reason to codify it

Does it take 29 rifles to protect your own life? How many handguns?
LIMITING and strictly registering and vetting owners of firearms would not take away the opportunity for responsible people from bearing arms. The founders lived in a very different world, culturally and technologically. That is why the Constitution was designed to change with the times.

--------------------------------------------------------- in the USA you can own any number of cars , motorcycles or guns that you like . And that being said , only one gun at a time can be used at a time OldLady . And your claim that the Constitution was DESIGNED to change with the times is your OPINION OldLady .

No, it's not an opinion, Pismoe.
Article 5
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Do you believe we have inalienable rights or only the rights "bestowed" upon us by the government?

Isn't there something about "natural rights" like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I don't know. I'm not a philosopher.

Exactly. But they aren't the only "natural rights." Jefferson used the words "amongst them."
If you truly believe we have these natural rights, you have to believe we have them outside the concept of any government.
If you believe these rights are more important than any other, i.e. right to vote, right of free speech against your government, right to an attorney, etc.,then you have to believe you have the inalienable, "natural right" to protect them.

 

[pismoe]

Does it take 29 rifles to protect your own life? How many handguns?
LIMITING and strictly registering and vetting owners of firearms would not take away the opportunity for responsible people from bearing arms. The founders lived in a very different world, culturally and technologically. That is why the Constitution was designed to change with the times.

--------------------------------------------------------- in the USA you can own any number of cars , motorcycles or guns that you like . And that being said , only one gun at a time can be used at a time OldLady . And your claim that the Constitution was DESIGNED to change with the times is your OPINION OldLady .

No, it's not an opinion, Pismoe.
Article 5
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Do you believe we have inalienable rights or only the rights "bestowed" upon us by the government?

Isn't there something about "natural rights" like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I don't know. I'm not a philosopher.

And you don't realize that you position is against the natural right of self preservation do you?

I firearm is the single most effective tool for self defense.

--------------------------------------------- SELF PRESERVATION --- I think that its an urge r thinking that many millennials softies and liberals , dems have forgotten and don't understand .

 

[Slade3200]

so like i said - you took pieces of a conversation and put them together on your own - each step requiring an assumption on your part to link the two.

i've pointed this out to you a lot, DamnDude has also and others i'm sure.

before i say someone is ok with bringing a machine gun to school i'm going to ask the direction question. not ask things like "so you think people should own machine guns" and get a yes and then extrapolate to our own ends and in effect, create a strawman along the way. and it looks like he answered your questions, you just didn't like them or they were not what you wanted him to say, so you went this route.

from my vantage point anyway.

I apologized to him and ask him to clarify his position. Thanks for keeping me in check

What odds to you give him to actually answer the question and clarifying the position? ;-)

from reading his replies, he has clarified it. but no, not to the manner you wish.

my take on bluesman:
if you're licensed you should be able to own a gun even up to a machine gun. logic being that to get licensed you've gone through every gambit and check that can be thrown at you and came up clean. while i may not agree with private people owning machine guns, it doesn't matter as he gave a trail from idea to reasoning behind it.

if you're licensed you should be able to carry concealed weapons where you wish. he never said a thing about machine guns in schools and even said no one would or should take them to a football game. i assume he means a school game but in any event, he clarified his point.

as for what other people do - don't care really. i care about what i do cause i'm the only one i can control. sometimes.

I think he is padding his answers hiding behind laws that are currently in the books when I’m trying to get clear about his opinion on our right to make laws that regulate guns. There are many absolutists out there they truly believe that no regulations should be in place as that’s what the constitution says. They want guns everywhere as they think it makes everybody safer. I disagree with this viewpoint and I like to see where the person I’m debating stands. If it is determined that we do have the right and responsibility to regulate guns then we can move into what makes sense.

This debate often gets locked up by the 2nd amendment as an unalienable Right that shall not be infringed upon. Can get into common ground in regulations when you debating somebody who believes that it can’t be regulated

its hard to get into a regulation discussion with a gun rights advocate when the left says GET RID OF THEM ALL after saying WE'RE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS.

most gun rights people would be willing to talk about options except that historically the left never stops at "just 1 statue" to be removed, now do they? they tend to treat a compromise or agreement as a starting point to go after the rest of what they want.

hell it wasn't til recently the media stopped saying an AR15 was an automatic weapon. it is not. it never has been. it's also not an assault rifle but over time, the left, as they tend to do, has degraded the word to fit their views and gets pretty upset if you don't follow along on that journey. when pressed for how an AR15 is different from a browning longtrac rifle (also a semi-automatic in .308 form in this example) they can't do it. when they realized an AR is about the same as a .22 in how they fire, they now want all semi-automatics gone. the more they learn about a topic the more they want it gone, not compromised.

you tell me - how do you reasonably find common ground with people who won't allow that to happen but keep altering the landscape until they get what they FEEL they want?

Well you speak with a person at a time. I’m on the left, I believe in smart regulation, I own guns, I don’t want to take them away. But when you use the slippery slope argument like you opened with and say the left wants to take guns away. I as somebody on the left is not represented and you end up defining me by something I never said... this is the same thing you’ve been critiquing me of doing.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

And yet they have been used to kill over 50 people really quickly by one shooter . Seems dangerous to me.

So?

Anyone could do the same thing with a really big truck and a snow plow

And it's not the gun that is dangerous it's the person shooting it that is the danger

I feel pretty safe from trucks on the 3rd floor of this building. They put up barriers and close roads to take care of that problem.

Doesn't negate the fact that it's the person who is the danger not the gun

And a dangerous person with easy access to guns is a whole lot more danger than an unarmed one.

outlawing guns won't make access any less easy for dangerous people.

Dangerous individuals- juvenile delinquents, felons, the insane, Illegal aliens- still aren't permitted to buy weapons in legal outlets. They have to go to guys selling out of their cars, hotel rooms, backrooms of bars, cocktail lounges and taverns. Those guys don't do background checks.

Of course, Draconian gun control will just push law abiders into the black market for their self-preservation needs. Is that what libs want?

Interesting subject you brought up..those private purchases that are exempt from background checks. Congress has attempted to close that loophole..the misnamed 'gun show loophole' for years. The NRA and the Right consistently oppose the law.

Now, you just bought up the very circumstances that proponents of such a law use in their arguments..so, where do you stand on such a law being enacted/ And..if you would, give me your logic?
I understand that the Black Market in guns won't go away..but most citizens are law abiding..so I contend that such a law might make a significant difference. Every time a gun is sold, or given to another party..paper should be done on it..and a background check performed. Easy to implement..just bring the form to the nearest registered dealer and use his access..charge a $5 fee to defray costs. Yes, I'd make failure to do so a criminal offense.

After all..as you say..most of us are law-abiding...I've bought guns from private individuals and from dealers and see no problem in such a law.

Before the posts and funny's start rolling in..I do NOT recognize the 'slippery slope' argument as valid. The 2nd is here to stay..and a little regulation won't hurt..and might help.

 

[Defiant1]

So if a car pulls up in your driveway and 4 thugs with their pants below their asses get out, you want a bolt action rifle?

That seems pretty random. Does it happen to you often?

House invasions are on the rise.
The more you leftists diminish personal property rights, demonize law enforcement, the more you say, "you didn't build that", tell people they have a right to housing, food, healthcare, the more brazen the thugs become.

 

[OldLady]

OK for all of the anti gun nut lefttards out there, answer this question. A good portion of households in Switzerland have an evil military assault rifle stashed in a closet so where are the waves of gun violence and mass shootings? If it's the guns as you say then the problem should exist there but if it's people and not guns it's long past time for you to shut your stupid yaps because you don't have brains enough to be preaching to anyone about anything. In fact you should stay away from the voting booth altogether too.

You have been listening to 2AGuy too long.
The Swiss own less than half as many guns as we do and they also need a license to own one and permission to carry one anywhere.

 

[iceberg]

I apologized to him and ask him to clarify his position. Thanks for keeping me in check

What odds to you give him to actually answer the question and clarifying the position? ;-)

from reading his replies, he has clarified it. but no, not to the manner you wish.

my take on bluesman:
if you're licensed you should be able to own a gun even up to a machine gun. logic being that to get licensed you've gone through every gambit and check that can be thrown at you and came up clean. while i may not agree with private people owning machine guns, it doesn't matter as he gave a trail from idea to reasoning behind it.

if you're licensed you should be able to carry concealed weapons where you wish. he never said a thing about machine guns in schools and even said no one would or should take them to a football game. i assume he means a school game but in any event, he clarified his point.

as for what other people do - don't care really. i care about what i do cause i'm the only one i can control. sometimes.

I think he is padding his answers hiding behind laws that are currently in the books when I’m trying to get clear about his opinion on our right to make laws that regulate guns. There are many absolutists out there they truly believe that no regulations should be in place as that’s what the constitution says. They want guns everywhere as they think it makes everybody safer. I disagree with this viewpoint and I like to see where the person I’m debating stands. If it is determined that we do have the right and responsibility to regulate guns then we can move into what makes sense.

This debate often gets locked up by the 2nd amendment as an unalienable Right that shall not be infringed upon. Can get into common ground in regulations when you debating somebody who believes that it can’t be regulated

its hard to get into a regulation discussion with a gun rights advocate when the left says GET RID OF THEM ALL after saying WE'RE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS.

most gun rights people would be willing to talk about options except that historically the left never stops at "just 1 statue" to be removed, now do they? they tend to treat a compromise or agreement as a starting point to go after the rest of what they want.

hell it wasn't til recently the media stopped saying an AR15 was an automatic weapon. it is not. it never has been. it's also not an assault rifle but over time, the left, as they tend to do, has degraded the word to fit their views and gets pretty upset if you don't follow along on that journey. when pressed for how an AR15 is different from a browning longtrac rifle (also a semi-automatic in .308 form in this example) they can't do it. when they realized an AR is about the same as a .22 in how they fire, they now want all semi-automatics gone. the more they learn about a topic the more they want it gone, not compromised.

you tell me - how do you reasonably find common ground with people who won't allow that to happen but keep altering the landscape until they get what they FEEL they want?

Well you speak with a person at a time. I’m on the left, I believe in smart regulation, I own guns, I don’t want to take them away. But when you use the slippery slope argument like you opened with and say the left wants to take guns away. I as somebody on the left is not represented and you end up defining me by something I never said... this is the same thing you’ve been critiquing me of doing.

except i'm saying this as a general rule of what the left does, NOT YOU. if you want to wear that mantle because you're on the left, feel free. i, while being usually on "the right" don't have all my beliefs there and don't protect every RIGHT talking point available.

so if i say "the left" is doing something i mean a hallmark of "the left" is doing it - NOT you. if you wish to take offense to it and take it personally even after stating to me you are not part of *that* mindset, that's on you.

all i am saying is the gun advocates are not going to talk about control because the hallmark of the left is CONTROL = REMOVAL, not understanding.

ie - the leftist media is wrong about AR15's. instead of correcting themselves, they change the meaning of words around to still be right. when they can't refute logic / facts, they then broaden their scope vs. apply a focus to the core.

again - you want to defend something you don't believe, have fun but it's going to make for a very fucked up conversation.