Right wingers...regarding Orlando tragedy....you have a tough choice to make

[Skull Pilot]

The framers wanted to allow citizens to form a militia on their own if they felt the need and not to be prevented in doing so by the government

Right, which is completely different from just about EVERY reason people today actually own guns for.

no it's not. People were expected to use their own weapons not those owned by the government.

 

[AntonToo]

There are a lot of deadly things in the world
For example fists and feet are far more deadly than all rifles combined

Yea if only the shooter wasn't so stupid and realized on his way to the club he can kill way more than 50 people with his bare hands.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There are a lot of deadly things in the world
For example fists and feet are far more deadly than all rifles combined

Yea if only the shooter wasn't so stupid and realized on his way to the club he can kill way more than 50 people with his bare hands.

It is a fact that fists and feet kill more people every year than all rifles combined so they are pretty fucking deadly aren't they?

 

[Divine Wind]

We could have some standards based on consistent,objective qualifying measures on how deadly a weapon is.

Such as cars that don't weigh more than 500 pounds, have feather-pillow bumpers and are limited to one horsepower per seat?

 

[AntonToo]

no it's not. People were expected to use their own weapons not those owned by the government.

Do you know anyone who owns a gun because they believe themselves to be part of some sort of well trained militia? Let's forget the anti-gobamint nutters for a second.

 

[Skull Pilot]

no it's not. People were expected to use their own weapons not those owned by the government.

Do you know anyone who owns a gun because they believe themselves to be part of some sort of well trained militia? Let's forget the anti-gobamint nutters for a second.

The point is they do not have to be part of a militia to own a weapon. The right to own arms precedes the membership in a militia

And I'll argue that I am a militia of one tasked with the protection of my wife and property

 

[AntonToo]

The point is they do not have to be part of a militia to own a weapon. The right to own arms precedes the membership in a militia

And I'll argue that I am a militia of one tasked with the protection of my wife and property

I'll argue that you are stretching badly and that preceding constitution is not a constitutional make.

 

[AntonToo]

It is a fact that fists and feet kill more people every year than all rifles combined so they are pretty fucking deadly aren't they?

It's a fact that no one committed mass.. I don't even know why I'm responding to this lol

 

[Divine Wind]

I'll argue that you are stretching badly and that preceding constitution is not a constitutional make.

Says the guy who claims anyone who supports the Second Amendment must also support nukes for everyone.

 

[AntonToo]

Says the guy who claims anyone who supports the Second Amendment must also support nukes for everyone.

No you mustn't, my point was that Constitution does not draw any distinction between arms and that it is left to our interpretation to draw those obviously necessary lines.

You really didn't understand that?

 

[Divine Wind]

Says the guy who claims anyone who supports the Second Amendment must also support nukes for everyone.

No you mustn't, my point was that Constitution does not draw any distinction between arms and that it is left to our interpretation to draw those obviously necessary lines.

You really didn't understand that?

Dude, you're the one who not only leaped to the "nuclear weapons" bullshit line of argumentation but lied about it being my position.

...I'm open to any reasonable conversation on the limits, but when your position is that everything is slippery slope all the way to up nuclear weapons, it's a non-starter.

 

[AntonToo]

Dude, you're the one who not only leaped to the "nuclear weapons" bullshit line of argumentation but lied about it being my position.

lol take it easy on lies and bullshit accusations.

You say you have some sort of limit on the slippery-slope argument? Ok how about sharing what that limit is?

 

[Divine Wind]

lol take it easy on lies and bullshit accusations.

You say you have some sort of limit on the slippery-slope argument? Ok how about sharing what that limit is?

Take your own advice. It's good.

Dude, you're the one bringing up the slippery-slope argument and nuclear weapons. Are you backing off that now?

 

[AntonToo]

Take your own advice. It's good.

Dude, you're the one bringing up the slippery-slope argument and nuclear weapons. Are you backing off that now?

So you never made an argument that restrictions will just lead to further restrictions?

I must be hallucinating as I read this:

No doubt it will come to that point. First they'll come for the "high capacity magazines" (more than 10 rounds) then, after a few years, if limiting magazines to 10 rounds was a good idea, why not limit them to 5 rounds and make only non-removable magazines legal? A few years later, if 5 rounds was a good idea, then why not go back to single shot?

You really do not see that you are making a slippery slope argument?

 

[Divine Wind]

Take your own advice. It's good.

Dude, you're the one bringing up the slippery-slope argument and nuclear weapons. Are you backing off that now?

So you never made an argument that restrictions will just lead to further restrictions?

I must be hallucinating as I read this:

No doubt it will come to that point. First they'll come for the "high capacity magazines" (more than 10 rounds) then, after a few years, if limiting magazines to 10 rounds was a good idea, why not limit them to 5 rounds and make only non-removable magazines legal? A few years later, if 5 rounds was a good idea, then why not go back to single shot?

You really do not see that you are making a slippery slope argument?

Answering questions with a question? Are you denying you lied about me and that it was you who brought up nuclear weapons?

 

[AntonToo]

Answering questions with a question? Are you denying you lied about me and that it was you who brought up nuclear weapons?

...seriously? You clearly aren't interested in moving the conversation forward.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ding Ding Ding! You're wrong! You Lose!

I can get a much better and more intelligent response from my dog.

Well, I surmise your dog would debate you under the rug.

Well, I surmise, as well as accurately declare, that You Are A Moron.

Who me?

 

[Divine Wind]

...seriously? You clearly aren't interested in moving the conversation forward.

Since you clearly aren't interested in answering questions nor apologizing for lying, clearly there is nothing to move forward.

 

[AntonToo]

Since you clearly aren't interested in answering questions nor apologizing for lying, clearly there is nothing to move forward.

I answered your question and explained to you exactly what the slippery slope has to do with as to your comments.

Now, if at some point you would care to address it and set some sort of reasonable limit on it, we have a way forward. There has to be SOME sort of arms where you draw line when it comes to constitutional rights to arms.

 

[Contumacious]

Since you clearly aren't interested in answering questions nor apologizing for lying, clearly there is nothing to move forward.

I answered your question and explained to you exactly what the slippery slope has to do with as to your comments.

Now, if at some point you would care to address it and set some sort of reasonable limit on it, we have a way forward. There has to be SOME sort of arms where you draw line when it comes to constitutional rights to arms.

And why would I accept whatever limits he agrees to?