The Right To Bear Arms

[Flash]

Anti gun nuts should to go read the Bill of Rights. Their lack of understanding is appalling.

Of course their agenda is not Liberty. Their agenda is to take away the right to keep and bear arms so that an armed citizenry will not be a threat to their desire to force this country into being a socialist shithole.

 

[The Derp]

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.

No, but you put a fence around your pool. You have life saving equipment like a donut or lifesaving pole. You have a "no running" sign up. You have a cover for your pool. You (hopefully) know CPR, or have a diagram/chart near the pool. You routinely test your pool's chlorine levels to kill bacteria. You treat your pool with chemicals to make it safe for people to swim in. You have the depth clearly marked. You have "no diving" signs.

Fuck outta here with this grade-school juvenile shit.

 

[kaz]

The rantings of a lunatic. If you want to make lucid arguments, let me know. Also, go back to high school and learn to use quote marks

It's crazy to think you'll be a hero, saving people with your gun...it's not crazy to say that "responsible gun owners" is just another form of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

You clearly don't understand the no true scotsman fallacy. Nowhere did I say anything of that form about responsible gun owners.

You're just an angry little guy. It's late for your nap, isn't it?

[media]

 

[The Derp]

Your argument is nonsense.

OR...

You're full of shit.

 

[The Derp]

You clearly don't understand the no true scotsman fallacy. Nowhere did I say anything of that form about responsible gun owners.

Sure you did. You may not have used those exact words, but the intent was there.

Everyone's a "responsible gun owner" until they're not, right? That's the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. I say that as many as 600,000 "responsible gun owners" have their guns stolen each year, and you say "well, they're not responsible gun owners". Ah, but they were until they lost their gun, right?

YYou're just an angry little guy. It's late for your nap, isn't it?

You're damn right I'm angry. I'm angry at lazy, fat, stupid, irresponsible people like you seeking every window to avoid responsibility that you can. Employing your "No true Scotsman" defense of gun owners when it's pointed out that not only are as many as 600,000 of them robbed a year, but that not even 90% of them report the theft to the police.

That's what "responsible gun ownership" looks like; negligent people lazily avoiding responsibility despite pretending you're responsible.

What a joke. A sad, tragic joke.

 

[The Derp]

NRA bumper stickers are like big, huge, flashing advertisements for thieves that say; "I have guns you can steal". And they do. As many as 600,000 are stolen every year. Every 2 minutes, another gun is stolen in this country from "responsible gun owners".

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Okay, dumbass, let me break it down for you.

If I decide to sell my gun to my son, for example, what PRECISELY am I going to find out from a background check that I don't already know?! Background checks are useful when you're selling a gun to someone you don't know. What the fuck do you expect them to accomplish in a sale between family and friends, other than your desperate leftist need to have the government involved in EVERYTHING?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Mkay, and did she give him the one he shot her with, or did he steal that one, too?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

"Should and shouldn't don't have much to do with reality." You know who said that? ME. Just now.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Humans?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

No you are saying that I am negligent even though in 30 years not one of my guns has ever been stolen.

See the difference?

Now if you said people who don't secure their guns are negligent I would agree with you but you're not saying that are you?

No you're not. You are saying that ALL gun owners are negligent even the millions of them who never had a gun stolen or reported it when it was stolen.

You want to live in an all or nothing world but when it's applied to you you call it fallacy

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

And you haven't raped a little boy YET

So I'm just going to call you Diddler from now on

And I told you how I secure my guns. No one is going to steal them because it is physically impossible for anyone to break into my house without setting off an alarm which prompts a call to the police find my gun safe in the basement and crack it and then get away with my firearms. There is no fucking way that safe is going to be jack hammered out of the concrete it is anchored into and carried up the stairs either.

So tell me how are you going to steal my guns, Diddler?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

No you are saying that I am negligent even though in 30 years not one of my guns has ever been stolen.

See the difference?

Now if you said people who don't secure their guns are negligent I would agree with you but you're not saying that are you?

No you're not. You are saying that ALL gun owners are negligent even the millions of them who never had a gun stolen or reported it when it was stolen.

You want to live in an all or nothing world but when it's applied to you you call it fallacy

Let's just cut to the chase. Derpderp thinks gun owners are negligent because they DARE to own items he doesn't think should exist, and to hold opinions he doesn't agree with.

End of story.

 

[Skull Pilot]

NRA bumper stickers are like big, huge, flashing advertisements for thieves that say; "I have guns you can steal". And they do. As many as 600,000 are stolen every year. Every 2 minutes, another gun is stolen in this country from "responsible gun owners".

I don't have any NRA bumper stickers. Or anything that would give away the fact that there are guns in my home.

Shit my friends don't even know what guns I own and some don't even know I own guns at all.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

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.

That is a sweeping generality based on nothing more than opinion, bias and hatred of gun owners and cannot be backed up. Every one of your posts is dripping with contempt for gun owners and has caused you to lose all objectivity on the issue.

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.

Who, exactly, is "you guys"? I've always known where my firearms were and, (this may be difficult for you to believe but it's true nonetheless), I would report it if it was stolen. And citing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is itself, a fallacy in this case because no one has said "no true gun owner...". What was said was "responsible gun owners...". A true gun owner may be responsible or irresponsible whereas, a responsible gun owner is, by definition, responsible. You can't be that friggin' blind as to not see the distinction. And I've told you at least two times now and you keep sidestepping it and that is: NO ONE SAID ALL GUN OWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE.

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.

Bullshit. That's the stupidest goddamn thing I've read in a long time. What if I'm not negligent? That's like saying that, even though I was not a robbery victim until yesterday when I got robbed, I was always a robbery victim.

Do you listen to yourself? Jesus Christ.

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.

Christ, this is like herding cats. I didn't bring that up to talk about drunk driving statistics, I brought it up to apply your reasoning to a different topic to illustrate how ridiculous it is.

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.

Then again, I might never act irresponsibly.

Chances are, you will.

No, chances are that an irresponsible gun owner will act irresponsibly.

This is an idiotic line of reasoning that might cover all the bases for you but it's still idiotic and does not stand up under logical scrutiny.

It's not a matter of if your gun gets stolen, but when.

Which would mean that every gun ever purchased has been and will be stolen. You're not so stupid as to believe this so why say it?

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.

Have you actually read anything I said? I've already told you twice that no one has suggested that all gun owners are responsible so why the hell do you keep parroting this crap?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

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.

This is how your reasoning works:

YET.

You have never caused an accident that killed someone YET.

You're carrying the risk that you will make an error in judgment on the road simply because you are driving.

So you can't call yourself a "responsible" driver if you're knowingly taking on risk that you might make a mistake someday and cause an accident that kills someone.

You're innocent of vehicular manslaughter until you are not. Because of this, you were never a responsible driver and were always guilty of vehicular manslaughter.

See how stupid that sounds?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Trying to live modern life according to the Constitution is much like trying to live modern life according to the Bible. Both are subject to vast interpretation.

/——-/ Not too much wiggle room in “Congress shall make no law.”

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

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.

No, but you put a fence around your pool. You have life saving equipment like a donut or lifesaving pole. You have a "no running" sign up. You have a cover for your pool. You (hopefully) know CPR, or have a diagram/chart near the pool. You routinely test your pool's chlorine levels to kill bacteria. You treat your pool with chemicals to make it safe for people to swim in. You have the depth clearly marked. You have "no diving" signs.

Fuck outta here with this grade-school juvenile shit.

You have just outlined the characteristics of a responsible pool owner. And yet, when a gun owner takes responsible actions such as purchasing the weapon legally, keeping it unloaded and in a gun safe when not in use, and reports it if stolen, he's irresponsible anyway.

You pose a dichotomy of responsible/irresponsible gun owners and cite examples of irresponsible behavior and then when someone counters it with logic, you yank the dichotomy off the table altogether and simply say that all gun owners are irresponsible. As I said before, you can't have it both ways.

This is a cheap, childish, petty and intellectually dishonest way of debating.

 

[turtledude]

really? gun deaths have declined over the years despite millions upon millions more guns in circulation and millions of people carrying guns legally. So you are either ignorant of the fact or lying. Most gun deaths are SUICIDES. the remaining number that are not justifiable or excusable shootings are homicides mainly and those are caused at rates of 80-90% by people who are not legally able to own or use guns

so stuff the silly dramatics. Gun violence in tis country-especially outside urban areas full of drug gangs is minuscule

USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?

what do I need a gun for? many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights

Why do I need a gun? I don't absolutely need a gun. I want one and have one. One of the reasons I might need a gun is when people like you try and take away my rights like outlined in the 1st amendment. You seem to forget that amendment.

I support your right to blather stupidity. I am a libertarian-I support all constitutional rights-especially the ones set forth in the constitution

I also support the consitutional right for our children to be safe under the 1st amendment. Not happening with you and your cronies interpretation of the 2nd.

that shows you are clueless about constitutional rights btw only a moron thinks someone merely owning gun deprives you of any rights

 

[turtledude]

I am 70 years old, I have never misused a firearm . I have never invaded my neighbors' rights. Th police has been designated to investigate and protect. I fail to see the reason the powers-that-be refuse to abolish the GUN FREE ZONES statute given the fact that the criminally insane have shown a predilection for our schools..

So you're just completely ignoring the conversation we were having about responsibility. Just because you haven't misused a firearm (according to a standard you just made up on the spot) yet, doesn't mean you won't eventually, or that your gun won't get stolen and then trafficked to criminals.

The point I'm making is that you can't call yourself a "responsible" anything because you can't predict what will happen down the line.

It is a fact that your gun is more likely to be stolen and used in a crime, than it will ever be used to protect you or your family.

So just by virtue of the fact of owning a gun, you're an irresponsible person. You can never prove you're a "responsible gun owner" because that means nothing.

OK Mr Twerp, you are just another fucked up gun grabber.


.

And you're just another rightwing liar, the post said about "grabbing guns."

Yo Jones...nobody takes you serious. You're unable to defend any premise you've ever posted. Loser

he is generally about 40% accurate about the constitution and 60% wrong