The Right To Bear Arms

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Second one today. This is really rare where there is strong gun control.
Maryland police officer shot and killed is second cop murdered in 12 hours

Law enforcement needs to demand gun control.

How are you going to get the Democratic Party's beloved criminals to turn in their guns?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Pray tell oh 2 dimensional sage how legally owning a firearm is an act of negligence

Simple; as many as 600,000 guns are stolen each year. So right away, there's inherent negligence among gun owners. If gun owners weren't negligent, then the number of guns stolen each year would be *0*.

You guys can't even 100% report stolen guns to the police. So what the fuck responsibility is inherent, pray tell?

How will the Democratic Party enforce their gun ban?

 

[9thIDdoc]

And it only takes one instance to prove you wrong.

No. It takes *0* gun thefts to prove me wrong.

I know exactly where all my guns are

Are you sure? Because from what I've read, some of you people wouldn't even notice the gun was missing. And you might know where they are right now, but ten minutes from now? Ten days? Ten years? You have no clue. As many as 600,000 of you people have at least one gun stolen from you each year. And only 86% of those guns stolen are even reported as stolen. Which means there could be as many as 84,000 guns "disappear" to the street and no one is looking for them.

The only word for that is negligence.

Bullspit. How exactly is it any different when one type of personal property is stolen than another?
If a stolen gun is not reported how would you know it was stolen as you claim to?
How many of those guns were stolen from the government?
Why report a stolen gun to a government who gives guns to criminals and other enemies and may not return it if it is found?

 

[Flash]

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.

No it is not. You are confused about this. There are at least ten million AR-15s in this country and according to the FBI stats very few of the them are used in crimes so the much greater chance is that the ones I own will never be used in a crime.

So you are saying an American citizen should have their Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms taken away because somebody may commit a crime sometime in the future? How stupid is that Moon Bat?

I know you stupid Moon Bats don't believe in freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms and so now you are throwing out the doctrine of innocent until proven guilty?

My god you people are idiots.

 

[The Derp]

You've told us a lot there about how YOU think, but not a damned thing about how others do.

Then by all means, help me understand why a "responsible gun owner" wouldn't do the responsible thing and run a background check on the other "responsible gun owner" to whom they were selling or transferring their gun?

Doesn't the fact that you don't run a background check mean you're not a "responsible gun owner"? I hear about these "responsible gun owners" all the time but every one I seem to meet on these boards doesn't think they should act responsibly. Why is that?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Pray tell oh 2 dimensional sage how legally owning a firearm is an act of negligence

Simple; as many as 600,000 guns are stolen each year. So right away, there's inherent negligence among gun owners. If gun owners weren't negligent, then the number of guns stolen each year would be *0*.

You guys can't even 100% report stolen guns to the police. So what the fuck responsibility is inherent, pray tell?

So then you must be negligent because you own a car too right because as many as 750000 cars are stolen each year.

You have trouble with the concept of other people not being responsible for crimes they do not commit.

If everyone lived in your 2 dimensional world then everyone is negligent at all times.

You are negligent if you own a knife because knives are used in more murders than rifles, the same with baseball bats

Shit all of us have hands and feet and those weapons are used in more murders than rifles.

So by your "logic" it is less negligent to own a rifle than a knife, a bat or your own hands and feet.

So now a little lesson.

Just because there is risk does not mean there is negligence.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And it only takes one instance to prove you wrong.

No. It takes *0* gun thefts to prove me wrong.

I know exactly where all my guns are

Are you sure? Because from what I've read, some of you people wouldn't even notice the gun was missing. And you might know where they are right now, but ten minutes from now? Ten days? Ten years? You have no clue. As many as 600,000 of you people have at least one gun stolen from you each year. And only 86% of those guns stolen are even reported as stolen. Which means there could be as many as 84,000 guns "disappear" to the street and no one is looking for them.

The only word for that is negligence.

And ZERO of my guns have ever been stolen

Q.E.D.

 

[Flash]

Go bless my great State of Florida!

MAGA Baby. Piss on the anti gun Moon Bats.

Nothing sells more guns than the silly ranting and raving of stupid Moon Bats.

AR-15 Sales Up 30% in Florida as Democrats Continue Push for Gun Ban

AR-15 Sales Up 30% in Florida as Democrats Continue Push for Gun Ban

Thanks to the Democrats’ continued threat to ban guns, sales of AR-15s are up 30% this week in Cape Coral, Florida area.

 

[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

DID Lanza's mother give him guns, or did he just take hers? I actually don't remember at this point.

Technically he shot her with one of her own guns and stole the others

 

[The Derp]

Since we're bringing up Kim Jong Un, your approach to gun control would translate into "The United States, Israel, and Great Britain shouldn't be allowed to have nukes, because North Korea can't be trusted with them."

We shouldn't have nukes. No one should. You know who said that? RONALD FUCKING REAGAN.

 

[Flash]

Since we're bringing up Kim Jong Un, your approach to gun control would translate into "The United States, Israel, and Great Britain shouldn't be allowed to have nukes, because North Korea can't be trusted with them."

We shouldn't have nukes. No one should. You know who said that? RONALD FUCKING REAGAN.

According to you stupid Moon Bats I should have to fill in my swimming pool because there is a chance some child could drown in it one day.

 

[The Derp]

You're not very good at this debate thing are you? Why not just come out and say that merely owning a gun is irresponsible? It wouldn't be true but at least you wouldn't be wasting your time and breath..

I have said that. Several times. I have said repeatedly that gun owners are inherently irresponsible. You guys can't seem to keep track of your weapons, and even when you can you are inconsistent when it comes to reporting those weapons lost or stolen to the authorities. Despite braying and bleating that you're "responsible", you refuse to act responsibly and subject every transaction involving your guns to a background check. So like "No true Scotsman", "responsible gun owner" is a fallacy.

The problem is, not all gun owners are guilty of the irresponsible behavior you cite. That's the problem with your entire argument. Either you're telling us that irresponsible gun owners purchase their guns illegally and don't report them stolen or you're telling us that every single one of the millions of gun owners in the country purchased their guns illegally and wouldn't report them stolen. You can't have it both ways.

"No true Scotsman" fallacy. You are eating a big, heaping plate of your own bullshit. The problem is that you can't call yourself a "responsible gun owner" until after your period of gun ownership ends. That's why it's a question not of how responsible you are, but how negligent you are. Because your gun could get stolen at any time; you could lose it; you could give it to someone dangerous. Most of what determines the likelihood of that is due to how negligent you are with your weapons.

Let's apply this reasoning to another area: According to 2015 figures, 10,265 people died that year in drunk driving accidents. That's nearly 30% of all auto fatalities. Why isn't it 0%? If this is what "responsible drivers" looks like then there are no responsible drivers. What's more, car manufacturers and liquor companies are to blame..

Sigh. First of all, drunk driving deaths have been cut in half since 1980 thanks entirely to; regulations, laws, rules, and a public campaign discouraging drunk driving. So thanks for helping me prove my point that government regulations, laws, rules, and public campaigns work.

Secondly, to combat drunk driving is your solution to make more drunk drivers? Because your solution to gun violence is to add more guns. So if we employ that rhetoric to drunk driving, that would mean you would think the best way to reduce drunk driving is to make sure everyone who drives does do inebriated.

Thirdly, if you want to compare guns to cars, then I'm totally fine with that. Fewer people died from cars than guns last year (and the year before). If you want to use cars as your point of comparison, then by all means let's put guns under the same lens that cars are put under, namely; register your gun with the State, insure your gun, have your gun inspected every year, have your gun tested every year, gun operation test, and required gun training. If you want to do all that, I'm totally down.

See how ridiculous that sounds? Besides, 600,000 is only a fraction of all the firearms owned in the U.S. Also, (if you're getting your numbers from the same article I'm looking at) the ATF says that burglaries of gun stores are“a significant source of illegally trafficked firearms”. Firearm dealers have to go through a process of applying for a dealer license with the ATF. After that, the ATF comes and inspects your business as to location in relation to schools and whatnot, and the security of the store and the firearms themselves. Only after the ATF is satisfied can he sell guns.

It doesn't matter if it's 600,000 or 1. The point is that "responsible gun ownership" isn't something you can do while you own a gun, because at any time you could act irresponsibly. Chances are, you will. It's not a matter of if your gun gets stolen, but when. 1 gun can kill 58 people and wound 900 in 60 seconds. As many as 600,000 guns disappear from their owners each year. And of those 600,000, 84,000 aren't even notified to the authorities. You all can't even break 90% when it comes to the rate at which you inform police that your gun is stolen. You can't even get an "A" for that. If that's what "responsible gun ownership" looks like...lol...fuck that shit.

So even if there's only 1 gun stolen a year, that 1 gun stolen invalidates all efforts at "responsible gun ownership" simply because you cannot profile someone for being negligent enough to let their guns get stolen, give their guns to someone dangerous, or accidentally harm someone with their gun.

 

[The Derp]

Pray tell oh 2 dimensional sage how legally owning a firearm is an act of negligence

Simple; as many as 600,000 guns are stolen each year. So right away, there's inherent negligence among gun owners. If gun owners weren't negligent, then the number of guns stolen each year would be *0*.

You guys can't even 100% report stolen guns to the police. So what the fuck responsibility is inherent, pray tell?

How will the Democratic Party enforce their gun ban?

How about you deal with the response I wrote instead of jumping to a non-sequitur because you feel insecure in your bullshit argument?

 

[The Derp]

Bullspit. How exactly is it any different when one type of personal property is stolen than another?

It doesn't fucking matter. You're the ones pretending to be "responsible gun owners", but you can't even do that. You can't even act responsibly with your own goddamned weapons. 234,000 of you every year see your gun(s) disappear. 33,000 of you don't even notify the police when it happens.

"Responsible gun owner" is the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, revised for America.

If a stolen gun is not reported how would you know it was stolen as you claim to?

Because we have a link from one of your own earlier in this thread that confirms it, from the DOJ: Household burglaries involving stolen firearms were more likely to be reported to police (86 percent)

How many of those guns were stolen from the government?

Zero. All the guns stolen are from individuals.

Why report a stolen gun to a government who gives guns to criminals and other enemies and may not return it if it is found?

You're the ones giving the guns to criminals when you don't do a background check on your private gun sale, or when you let your guns get stolen from right under your nose. This is what I mean when I say you lack responsibility, and why you cannot call yourself a "responsible gun owner".

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Pray tell oh 2 dimensional sage how legally owning a firearm is an act of negligence

Simple; as many as 600,000 guns are stolen each year. So right away, there's inherent negligence among gun owners. If gun owners weren't negligent, then the number of guns stolen each year would be *0*.

You guys can't even 100% report stolen guns to the police. So what the fuck responsibility is inherent, pray tell?

How will the Democratic Party enforce their gun ban?

How about you deal with the response I wrote instead of jumping to a non-sequitur because you feel insecure in your bullshit argument?

Your argument is nonsense.

 

[The Derp]

No it is not. You are confused about this. There are at least ten million AR-15s in this country and according to the FBI stats very few of the them are used in crimes so the much greater chance is that the ones I own will never be used in a crime.

"Very few"????? Listen to yourself; you're bargaining with your argument as you make it! This is like nothing I've ever seen. You're trying to prove to me that there are "responsible gun owners", and then you go and admit that "very few" (ambiguous, vague) use them illegally. Like I'm supposed to be impressed by that or something? It's not impressive. It's fucking pathetic and sad. NONE of them should be used in crimes and the fact that "very few" (undefined, generic) are doesn't prove "responsible gun ownership", it proves gun negligence.

Not even 100% of "responsible gun owners" report their guns stolen. Face it; you're inherently negligent people.

So you are saying an American citizen should have their Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms taken away because somebody may commit a crime sometime in the future? How stupid is that Moon Bat?

First of all, I don't agree with that 2008 interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and neither did the half dozen lower courts. Secondly, I don't have a problem with people owning guns, what I have a problem with is people pretending that they're "responsible gun owners" when all their actions speak otherwise; from not running background checks every time your gun changes hands, to not reporting consistently that your gun has been stolen, to even having your gun stolen in the first fucking place. Thirdly, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to have blanket ownership since you seem incapable of acting responsibly. You're here making arguments to act irresponsibly, and I'm supposed to discern that you're responsible based on that? How?

I know you stupid Moon Bats don't believe in freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms and so now you are throwing out the doctrine of innocent until proven guilty?My god you people are idiots.

It's not a matter of innocence vs. guilt, it's a matter of responsibility vs. negligence. None of you are completely, 100% responsible simply because you own a gun in the first place, which itself is inherently irresponsible because that gun could be stolen, lost, trafficked, and/or used in a crime.

So rather than measure your responsibility, we have to measure your negligence; how secure are your weapons? How often are you home? How often do you use them? How often do you clean them? Do you loan them out? Do you give them to people without a background check? Do you advertise your gun ownership either by open carry or a stupid NRA sticker on your car? Have you undergone a psychological exam to determine if you're mentally ill? These are all questions that affect your negligence.

 

[mudwhistle]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Haven't we had this debate before?????

You dumb asses still can't grasp the fact that guns aren't the cause for alot of the violence in this country.

3 guesses what they are.

 

[The Derp]

So then you must be negligent because you own a car too right because as many as 750000 cars are stolen each year.

You can sure as shit bet that almost 100% of car thefts are reported to the police. Certainly more than the 86% of gun thefts you people report. So #NONSEQUITURFAIL for you.

You have trouble with the concept of other people not being responsible for crimes they do not commit.

See! This is what I mean. Here you are saying it's not your fault that your gun was stolen. It's you acting like an entitled brat and expecting to not be responsible or accountable for your fuckup. So is that why so many of you people don't report your guns as stolen? Because you don't think it's your fault or that you bear any responsibility?

None of you people are responsible people, even on a personal level. You're just varying degrees of walking negligence.

If everyone lived in your 2 dimensional world then everyone is negligent at all times.

Gun owners are, yes. Simply by virtue of having this thing that is stolen and trafficked into the hands of criminals. Simply by virtue of the fact that you said you don't run background checks. Simply by virtue of the fact that you said "responsible gun owners" can't be expected to know where their guns are at all times (the very definition of "responsibility"). When gun thefts get to *0*, then you can talk about responsibility and the lessons of it. But you can't say shit about responsibility today until you clowns do a lot fucking better than you're doing now.

You are negligent if you own a knife because knives are used in more murders than rifles, the same with baseball bats

When one person wielding a knife or a bat can kill 58 people and wound 900 in 60 seconds, then I'd be the first person to talk about knife or bat control. Until that time, congrats on making the world's shittiest point.

Shit all of us have hands and feet and those weapons are used in more murders than rifles.So by your "logic" it is less negligent to own a rifle than a knife, a bat or your own hands and feet.So now a little lesson.Just because there is risk does not mean there is negligence.

Logical fallacies are all you people have left.

 

[Lakhota]

Does anyone know if this is true?

 

[The Derp]

And ZERO of my guns have ever been stolen

YET.

None of your guns have been stolen YET.

You're carrying the risk that they will be stolen simply because you have them.

So you can't call yourself "responsible" if you're knowingly taking on risk you can't manage.