No one can give me a rational reason why

[Billo_Really]

Yes it is.

Why is it so important for you to own an automatic weapon?

 

[Blues Man]

I don't give a shit how many! Why is it so important to you to have an automatic weapon?

I don't have an automatic weapon

I have semiautomatic weapons though do you know the difference?

 

[Billo_Really]

I don't have an automatic weapon

I have semiautomatic weapons though do you know the difference?

YAWN! I'm not a gun guy. I could care less about the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Blues Man]

YAWN! I'm not a gun guy. I could care less about the 2nd Amendment.

And yet you're whining about gun ownership

 

[justoffal]

No one can give me a rational reason why the average law abiding citizen should not be allowed to own firearms.

Saying that some people might commit crimes with guns is not a rational reason.

Saying that some people may kill themselves with a gun is not a rational reason

The great and venerable collective pretends it's for public safety which is ridiculous. The reality is that the mighty ruoers of the great and venerable collective need to destroy independence of any kind.

 

[Natural Citizen]

There has never been a reason clause for a Constitutional right.

 

[Libby von H]

No one can give me a rational reason why the average law abiding citizen should not be allowed to own firearms.

Saying that some people might commit crimes with guns is not a rational reason.

Saying that some people may kill themselves with a gun is not a rational reason

But can you give me a reason why I have to submit my choice to your reasoning? That is the error from which all flows.
Don't call into question what is obvious.

 

[Cellblock2429]

No one can give me a rational reason why the average law abiding citizen should not be allowed to own firearms.

Saying that some people might commit crimes with guns is not a rational reason.

Saying that some people may kill themselves with a gun is not a rational reason

/---/ It's because democRATs learned long ago that they can't fill mass graves when their victims can shoot back.

 

[Resnic]

No one can give me a rational reason why the average law abiding citizen should not be allowed to own firearms.

Saying that some people might commit crimes with guns is not a rational reason.

Saying that some people may kill themselves with a gun is not a rational reason

There is no reason why.

If our society treated criminals, dopeheads and nutballs like what they are, and fostered a sense of morals, decency and standards in everyone else we wouldn't need any gun control.

 

[Billo_Really]

And yet you're whining about gun ownership

I'm not saying anything about gun ownership. I'm saying there is no reason for a civilian to own an automatic weapon.

 

[AZrailwhale]

But can you give me a reason why I have to submit my choice to your reasoning? That is the error from which all flows.
Don't call into question what is obvious.

Your only choice is to either buy, or not to buy guns yourself. You have no right to dictate to other people.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I'm not saying anything about gun ownership. I'm saying there is no reason for a civilian to own an automatic weapon.

Except NONE OF YOUR POSTS mention automatic weapons, just semi-auto ones.

 

[hadit]

Other nations have peace and prosperity without the weekly bloodbaths that come with the 2nd amendment.

Quick…cue the stuff from 80 years ago on a different continent to tell us why we have to have guns.

I think I see where the wheels fell off your tricycle. The Amendment doesn't talk about needs or wants. It simply says people can own guns, full stop.

As for other nations being all copesetic with an unarmed populace and stuff, how long do you think they will stay that way? The sneeze guard at a salad bar gets in the way, it makes getting the ingredients for the salad clumsy and you hope against all hope it will never, ever, be used. But boy, are you glad it's there when it's needed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think I see where the wheels fell off your tricycle. The Amendment doesn't talk about needs or wants. It simply says people can own guns, full stop.

Not just that, but the government cannot infringe on our right to do so - even if someone believes doing so is a good idea.

 

[LibertyKid]

YAWN! I'm not a gun guy. I could care less about the 2nd Amendment.

The great thing about the 2A is you don't have to be a gun guy. What is important is that you understand that the forefathers understood the importance of armed citizens for the protection of freedom and tyranny, whether the tyranny was foreign or domestic. To stand against armed citizens is putting more faith in gov't to do what is right for the people, than letting the people decide what they want.

 

[LibertyKid]

The great and venerable collective pretends it's for public safety which is ridiculous. The reality is that the mighty ruoers of the great and venerable collective need to destroy independence of any kind.

Personal protection is not the core of the 2A. Personal protection is only a secondary attribute provided by the right to bear arms. However, some states, like Pennsylvania, codified in their own state constitution the right to bear arms for personal and state protections, which only backs up the 2A even further.

 

[candycorn]

I think I see where the wheels fell off your tricycle. The Amendment doesn't talk about needs or wants. It simply says people can own guns, full stop.

As for other nations being all copesetic with an unarmed populace and stuff, how long do you think they will stay that way? The sneeze guard at a salad bar gets in the way, it makes getting the ingredients for the salad clumsy and you hope against all hope it will never, ever, be used. But boy, are you glad it's there when it's needed.

A bad idea is a bad idea. 30,000 gun deaths a year is a high price to pay for a rule that was implemented before we had a standing army (of any size) and indigenous populations that were dangerous, a colonial master who was sending troops to quell a rebellion and many places didn’t have much in the way of a police force.

But we have the 2nd Amendment and all of the carnage that comes with it. Other nations don’t and they enjoy the same freedoms. You tell me...how long do YOU think it will last--their enjoying the same freedoms?

 

[AZrailwhale]

A bad idea is a bad idea. 30,000 gun deaths a year is a high price to pay for a rule that was implemented before we had a standing army (of any size) and indigenous populations that were dangerous, a colonial master who was sending troops to quell a rebellion and many places didn’t have much in the way of a police force.

But we have the 2nd Amendment and all of the carnage that comes with it. Other nations don’t and they enjoy the same freedoms. You tell me...how long do YOU think it will last--their enjoying the same freedoms?

Your faith in the goodness of government is not surprising since for most of the last hundred years the government has favored your social preferences.
Let me put another situation out there for you to consider. Suppose the states elect a far right president and congress who decides to use the power of the government to to turn back the social clock to 1850. No more minority rights, no vote for women, only land owning whites men can sit on juries or enter politics. No more Miranda warnings or publicly funded defense attorneys, mandatory incarceration for even mild mental illness, forced sterilization of any woman the government decides is unfit. I know that seems far out, and a worst case scenario, but worse things have happened in history. Would you want an armed populace able to resist that tyranny? It’s the nature of people drawn to government “service” to want to accumulate power, the founders were wise enough to see that fact.

 

[candycorn]

Your faith in the goodness of government is not surprising since for most of the last hundred years the government has favored your social preferences.
Let me put another situation out there for you to consider. Suppose the states elect a far right president and congress who decides to use the power of the government to to turn back the social clock to 1850. No more minority rights, no vote for women, only land owning whites men can sit on juries or enter politics. No more Miranda warnings or publicly funded defense attorneys, mandatory incarceration for even mild mental illness, forced sterilization of any woman the government decides is unfit. I know that seems far out, and a worst case scenario, but worse things have happened in history. Would you want an armed populace able to resist that tyranny? It’s the nature of people drawn to government “service” to want to accumulate power, the founders were wise enough to see that fact.

I’ll take my chances as I believe in the power of democracy; our courts, our checks and balances.

At any rate, I don’t think anyone’s persona arsenal is going to stand much of a chance against a standing army.

 

[hadit]

A bad idea is a bad idea. 30,000 gun deaths a year is a high price to pay for a rule that was implemented before we had a standing army (of any size) and indigenous populations that were dangerous, a colonial master who was sending troops to quell a rebellion and many places didn’t have much in the way of a police force.

But we have the 2nd Amendment and all of the carnage that comes with it. Other nations don’t and they enjoy the same freedoms. You tell me...how long do YOU think it will last--their enjoying the same freedoms?

Only until a neighboring country decides it's a good idea to invade or an immigrant group to decide it would be better for things to more resemble the way they are at home and they take up arms to force it. We have the means to amend the Constitution if we need to.