The Right To Bear Arms

[Skull Pilot]

Is that like I have to pay your bills because you are too irresponsible to pay your own and sign up for welfare and then the government takes my money and gives it to you?

No, it's like you're too irresponsible to be able to manage your weapons, and it's only a matter of when, not if, your gun is stolen and then used in a crime. That's assuming you even know how many guns you have and where they are. As many as 600,000 "responsible gun owners" can't even do that. And as many as 84,000 "responsible gun owners" don't even notify the police when one of their guns is stolen. So y'all can't even get an 'A' for responsibility. And anything below an A is a failure.

Why aren't 100% of gun thefts reported to the police, and gun thefts down to *0*? Simple; gun owners are simply not responsible people. Like, at all.

My AR-15s have never killed anybody but yet the stupid anti Constitutional Moon Bats want to ban my AR-15s.

Hasn't killed anybody...yet. Hasn't been stolen...yet. Since y'all aren't responsible people, it's only a matter of time before your gun is stolen. In fact, it's far more likely your gun will get stolen because you're irresponsible, than it is likely your gun will ever be used to defend you or your family. Most gun owners seem like ticking time bombs, ready to either explode in a hail of bullets, or become so neglectful they have their guns stolen, then don't tell the police; that's "responsible gun ownership" in America.

The assholes want to punish me and take away my Constitutional rights because somebody else does something illegal. That is oppressive, isn't it?Why should I be considered guilty by the government when it is other people that commit crimes.

Because you're not a responsible person. No gun owners are. There is no such thing as a "responsible gun owner". There are only degrees of gun negligence.

Yes yes we know ALL gun owners are irresponsible even though 86% of stolen guns are reported.

 

[MordechaiGoodbud]

fyi; the Second Amendment allows you to have the other amendments.

For those totally ignorant of history

Yep,

Without the second the government can just take all of our rights away.

Bullshit. The 2nd amendment was written to give states the right to form militias to fight Indian attacks and foreign invaders. This was before the u.s. had a standing army. It was not written to resist the government that people voted for. The constitution expressly gives congress the power to crush insurrection, but you probably do not know that because you are a guntard.

 

[Brain357]

Another dead officer. What happens regularly here is very rare when there is strong gun control.
https://nypost.com/2018/02/21/police-officer-shot-in-alabama-leading-to-standoff/

Law enforcement needs to demand gun control.

 

[The Derp]

Or maybe just maybe it's a father giving a rifle to a kid and the father knows his child isn't a felon

It's not the father's judgment to make that call. And didn't Adam Lanza's mother give him weapons?

The Columbine parents had no clue their kids were planning the massacre. Parents don't know shit about their kids lives, particularly teenagers. Don't be so stupid and naive.

But THAT never happens right?

How frequently does that happen? Again, you don't know because no background checks are run.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Or maybe just maybe it's a father giving a rifle to a kid and the father knows his child isn't a felon

It's not the father's judgment to make that call. And didn't Adam Lanza's mother give him weapons?

The Columbine parents had no clue their kids were planning the massacre. Parents don't know shit about their kids lives, particularly teenagers. Don't be so stupid and naive.

But THAT never happens right?

How frequently does that happen? Again, you don't know because no background checks are run.

Gee I don't know but it's how every single boy in the country got his first gun isn't it?
In fact I was given 4 guns before I was 18 and not one background check was run because my uncle knew I was not a felon.

But we know in your 2 dimensional world that things like the situation above can never ever happen.

Tell me do you think you should get car insurance surcharges because some drivers speed?
Should you lose your license because some people drive drunk?

Be careful answering because inconsistency is hypocrisy

 

[Skull Pilot]

Or maybe just maybe it's a father giving a rifle to a kid and the father knows his child isn't a felon

It's not the father's judgment to make that call. And didn't Adam Lanza's mother give him weapons?

The Columbine parents had no clue their kids were planning the massacre. Parents don't know shit about their kids lives, particularly teenagers. Don't be so stupid and naive.

But THAT never happens right?

How frequently does that happen? Again, you don't know because no background checks are run.

Here we go again

Holding everyone responsible for the acts of one person.

Lanza also shot an killed his mother.

And the columbine kids didn't get their weapons from their parents

 

[Rustic]

Is that like I have to pay your bills because you are too irresponsible to pay your own and sign up for welfare and then the government takes my money and gives it to you?

No, it's like you're too irresponsible to be able to manage your weapons, and it's only a matter of when, not if, your gun is stolen and then used in a crime. That's assuming you even know how many guns you have and where they are. As many as 600,000 "responsible gun owners" can't even do that. And as many as 84,000 "responsible gun owners" don't even notify the police when one of their guns is stolen. So y'all can't even get an 'A' for responsibility. And anything below an A is a failure.

Why aren't 100% of gun thefts reported to the police, and gun thefts down to *0*? Simple; gun owners are simply not responsible people. Like, at all.

My AR-15s have never killed anybody but yet the stupid anti Constitutional Moon Bats want to ban my AR-15s.

Hasn't killed anybody...yet. Hasn't been stolen...yet. Since y'all aren't responsible people, it's only a matter of time before your gun is stolen. In fact, it's far more likely your gun will get stolen because you're irresponsible, than it is likely your gun will ever be used to defend you or your family. Most gun owners seem like ticking time bombs, ready to either explode in a hail of bullets, or become so neglectful they have their guns stolen, then don't tell the police; that's "responsible gun ownership" in America.

The assholes want to punish me and take away my Constitutional rights because somebody else does something illegal. That is oppressive, isn't it?Why should I be considered guilty by the government when it is other people that commit crimes.

Because you're not a responsible person. No gun owners are. There is no such thing as a "responsible gun owner". There are only degrees of gun negligence.

 

[The Derp]

I sold it to one of my shooting buddies. The guy is a responsible gun owner and has a concealed weapons permit.,

1. There is no such thing as a "responsible gun owner"...there are only degrees of gun negligence.

2. You don't know shit about your "shooting buddy", and obviously transferred the gun to him this way because you were too scared to run a background check on this random guy you claim to know. Why? Simple; because you knew he wouldn't pass it.

3. You haven't made the case for why even private transfers should be subject to background checks. In fact, you've made a stronger case for them because you're saying you are relying purely on your judgement that the guy you sold your gun to without a background check was competent.

There was no legal requirement to have a background check so we didn't do it. There was no intention of circumventing the background check so your assumption is just plain wrong.

Of course the intention was to avoid a background check. Otherwise, why not run one? You're saying simply because the law says you didn't have to...but shouldn't "responsible gun owners" want the background checks to prove they're responsible? Seems like your own point is self-defeating. You're relying purely and solely on your judgment. What the fuck makes you think your judgment is sound? It's obviously not sound if you're not running a background check like a "responsible gun owner" would.

Most private transfers are simply one person selling a gun to another with no intentions of the gun to ever be used in a crime.

LOL! That's hilarious. How can you divine that isn't the intention? Are you clairvoyant or something? How do you know that person you just sold the gun to isn't going to turn around and sell the gun to a straw purchaser for cash, who will then traffic the gun to a city where it is inevitably used in a crime? You don't know that. Because all you are relying on is your piss-poor judgment. You make a judgment without knowing all the facts that a background check would provide. Hence, you're not acting responsibly.

Of course there are no records on it but being involved in the gun community and being somewhat knowledgeable I would think that the great majority of private transfers is simply one person selling a gun to a friend or somebody they know.

You would think? So when it boils down to it, you're just saying it's ultimately your judgment that is leading you to these conclusions. Why the fuck do you think your judgment is sound, when you don't even have the judgment to run a background check on anyone with whom you're doing a transfer or sale?

That's not good judgment. That's piss-poor judgment, laziness, and irresponsibility.

Most people that I do know that occasionally sell guns to people that they don't know ask to see their concealed weapons permit, that is defacto proof that they could pass a background check. When I have occasionally sold guns at a gun show as a private transfer I have always asked to see the CWP.It is not the problem that Libtards make it out to be,

"defacto proof" "I would think"...these are broad assumptions, uninformed, made by someone relying on their own piss-poor judgment when it comes to running a background check and it's exactly why all transfers and transactions should be subject to a background check; your judgment isn't proof of responsibility.

 

[The Derp]

SOME gun owners are not responsible but then again you have proven that you believe the world is one big false dichotomy

"No true Scotsman" fallacy.

There is no such thing as "responsible gun ownership"; there are only degrees of gun ownership negligence.

 

[The Derp]

Yes yes we know ALL gun owners are irresponsible even though 86% of stolen guns are reported.

Which means 14% aren't! 86% isn't even an "A".

Why isn't the reporting rate 100%?

Simple; negligence.

So until the number of guns stolen reaches *0*, there exists no reality of "responsible guin ownership".

 

[The Derp]

The constitution expressly gives congress the power to crush insurrection, but you probably do not know that because you are a guntard.

^^^^^THIS^^^^^

 

[Brain357]

We are already well over how many countries with strong gun control lose in a whole year.

It's February. Already 13 officers shot to deat

 

[The Derp]

Gee I don't know but it's how every single boy in the country got his first gun isn't it?

Is it? You can't say this for sure because you don't know. You're just making a broad, general assumption based on some Mayberry bullshit that you never experienced, but pretend you did for the sake of your shitty argument on an anonymous message board. Parents give guns to their kids, who then take those guns and shoot up schools.

Like I said, there is no such thing as "responsible gun ownership", just degrees of negligence.

In fact I was given 4 guns before I was 18 and not one background check was run because my uncle knew I was not a felon.

I don't even see why you would say this since "responsible gun ownership" would entail being responsible enough to run a background check, whether you think it will turn up something or not. Running a background check is an act of responsibility that you're saying "responsible gun owners" don't need to do. So they're not responsible gun owners if they aren't acting responsibly by running a background check.

That's why your argument is self-defeating. You claim these people are responsible, yet they don't act responsibly.

But we know in your 2 dimensional world that things like the situation above can never ever happen.Tell me do you think you should get car insurance surcharges because some drivers speed?Should you lose your license because some people drive drunk?

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about because running a background check on someone else has no fucking effect on you. You running a background check doesn't mean you will lose your guns if the person you ran the check on failed it. And if you want to treat guns like cars, I'm all for it. Cars have to be registered with the state, they have to be inspected yearly, you have to have a license to operate one, you have to take it in for performance tests, you have to renew your license and take a test, and you have to have your car insured.

Is the answer to drunk driving to flood the road with drunk drivers? That's your "more guns are the answer" solution, "responsible gun owner". And BTW - since 1980, drunk driving deaths have been cut in half. Why? Laws, rules, regulations, and a public campaign discouraging it. So thanks for helping me make the case that laws, rules, regulations, and public campaigns work.

 

[The Derp]

Holding everyone responsible for the acts of one person.

I thought "responsible gun ownership" was all about acting responsibly. Time and time again we see examples of that not being the case. No responsibility, only negligence. You're the one representing "responsible gun ownership" on these boards, yet prove time and time again that you're not responsible for anything.

All you are is negligent.

Lanza also shot an killed his mother.
And the columbine kids didn't get their weapons from their parents

What does Lanza shooting his mother have to do with "responsible gun ownership" of Lanza's mother giving him guns? Nothing. All it proves is that the judgment of parents is shit. So your example of giving your gun to your kid shows that even that simple act carries a ton of negligence with it. Negligence for which you "responsible gun owners" need to be held to account.

 

[The Derp]

Is that like I have to pay your bills because you are too irresponsible to pay your own and sign up for welfare and then the government takes my money and gives it to you?

No, it's like you're too irresponsible to be able to manage your weapons, and it's only a matter of when, not if, your gun is stolen and then used in a crime. That's assuming you even know how many guns you have and where they are. As many as 600,000 "responsible gun owners" can't even do that. And as many as 84,000 "responsible gun owners" don't even notify the police when one of their guns is stolen. So y'all can't even get an 'A' for responsibility. And anything below an A is a failure.

Why aren't 100% of gun thefts reported to the police, and gun thefts down to *0*? Simple; gun owners are simply not responsible people. Like, at all.

My AR-15s have never killed anybody but yet the stupid anti Constitutional Moon Bats want to ban my AR-15s.

Hasn't killed anybody...yet. Hasn't been stolen...yet. Since y'all aren't responsible people, it's only a matter of time before your gun is stolen. In fact, it's far more likely your gun will get stolen because you're irresponsible, than it is likely your gun will ever be used to defend you or your family. Most gun owners seem like ticking time bombs, ready to either explode in a hail of bullets, or become so neglectful they have their guns stolen, then don't tell the police; that's "responsible gun ownership" in America.

The assholes want to punish me and take away my Constitutional rights because somebody else does something illegal. That is oppressive, isn't it?Why should I be considered guilty by the government when it is other people that commit crimes.

Because you're not a responsible person. No gun owners are. There is no such thing as a "responsible gun owner". There are only degrees of gun negligence.

Thanks for proving my point about gun owners being negligent and irresponsible.

 

[impuretrash]

Is that like I have to pay your bills because you are too irresponsible to pay your own and sign up for welfare and then the government takes my money and gives it to you?

No, it's like you're too irresponsible to be able to manage your weapons, and it's only a matter of when, not if, your gun is stolen and then used in a crime. That's assuming you even know how many guns you have and where they are. As many as 600,000 "responsible gun owners" can't even do that. And as many as 84,000 "responsible gun owners" don't even notify the police when one of their guns is stolen. So y'all can't even get an 'A' for responsibility. And anything below an A is a failure.

Why aren't 100% of gun thefts reported to the police, and gun thefts down to *0*? Simple; gun owners are simply not responsible people. Like, at all.

My AR-15s have never killed anybody but yet the stupid anti Constitutional Moon Bats want to ban my AR-15s.

Hasn't killed anybody...yet. Hasn't been stolen...yet. Since y'all aren't responsible people, it's only a matter of time before your gun is stolen. In fact, it's far more likely your gun will get stolen because you're irresponsible, than it is likely your gun will ever be used to defend you or your family. Most gun owners seem like ticking time bombs, ready to either explode in a hail of bullets, or become so neglectful they have their guns stolen, then don't tell the police; that's "responsible gun ownership" in America.

The assholes want to punish me and take away my Constitutional rights because somebody else does something illegal. That is oppressive, isn't it?Why should I be considered guilty by the government when it is other people that commit crimes.

Because you're not a responsible person. No gun owners are. There is no such thing as a "responsible gun owner". There are only degrees of gun negligence.

Thanks for proving my point about gun owners being negligent and irresponsible.

Are you trying to say that gun owners shouldn't be allowed to post memes or express their opinions?

 

[The Derp]

Are you trying to say that gun owners shouldn't be allowed to post memes or express their opinions?

I'm saying gun owners are negligent people who can't be trusted to act responsibly.

 

[Skull Pilot]

SOME gun owners are not responsible but then again you have proven that you believe the world is one big false dichotomy

"No true Scotsman" fallacy.

There is no such thing as "responsible gun ownership"; there are only degrees of gun ownership negligence.

So ZERO negligence does exist.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes yes we know ALL gun owners are irresponsible even though 86% of stolen guns are reported.

Which means 14% aren't! 86% isn't even an "A".

Why isn't the reporting rate 100%?

Simple; negligence.

So until the number of guns stolen reaches *0*, there exists no reality of "responsible guin ownership".

You want to call ALL gun owners negligent.

You're just proving yourself incapable of intelligent thought

 

[impuretrash]

Are you trying to say that gun owners shouldn't be allowed to post memes or express their opinions?

I'm saying gun owners are negligent people who can't be trusted to act responsibly.

And you reached this conclusion based on a gif of a cartoon cow.